gnosis92

Does Gjohn and johannine 1, 2, 3rd epistles share same author, or community, if so, which was written first, and how did the author see the 4 works as related to one another? Is the sequence of the letters in correct chronological order? Based both on internal clues and linguistic and textual analysis and themes language vocabulary. (I do not regard revelations to be of the same author)

Do you think the johannine knew Pauline and Epistle to thhe Hebrews, or was influnced by its christology

aa5874

First of all, Eusebius in Church History claimed that the 2nd and third epistles of John are disputed, in fact, Eusebius claimed that every author of the canonised epistles except those in the name of Paul are disputed.

Church History 3.25

LogicandReason

Eusebius is a very interesting read. I couldn't believe what he wrote about 2nd Peter and the reason it was saved (because some find it helpful).

DCHindley

I'll agree they (gospel of John, at least the words attributed to Jesus and the first chapter through vs 18, and all three epistles of John) do seem to share a similar kind of style.

I do not detect any specifically Pauline phrases, although the vocabulary of the epistles of John may overlap a little, especially with words found in the Christologically oriented passages of the Pauline corpus. 2nd & 3rd John may not have been received as they appear to have been very short personal letters to individuals, where 1st John seems to want to teach something to a group of persons, a warning against deviations from the group's original teachings about Jesus the redeemer Christ, maybe even the "something" he said he sent to "the congregation" in 3rd John 9. I suspect that 2nd John was the cover letter to the teaching document, and 3rd John was directed later to someone else the "lady" who had accepted the emissary with the teaching document, who were not in league with Diotrephes, who in his turn had not previously received the emissary or emissaries from John's own congregation.

I get the impression from 3 John 7 and the talk of "brothers" in 1 John that John's congregation and those to whom he wrote as well were composed of Jews, and preferred not to mix with gentiles, unless this was a metaphor for those who "hated" the "brothers". Perhaps, from my POV, John's kind of redeemer Christ believers considered themselves Jewish, whereas the person(s) who(m) I believe redacted the Pauline corpus to add redeemer Christ language to it had fully broken from Judaism and actually did hate Jews (I have proposed that he and his group were actually lapsed proselytes who felt betrayed by Jews in general, especially in the aftermath of the Jewish rebellion of 66-70+ CE). Diotrephes may have been such a lapsed Jew of the kind who redacted the Paulines, while "John" and his congregation were former gentiles who had willingly converted to Judaism as a wing of the Jesus movement, which preached an inclusive Jewish messianic kingdom message.

Hebrews, on the other hand, seems more closely related to the Christ teachings found in the Christological passages of the Pauline corpus, although more fully thought out and less antagonistic towards Jews as a people. Before the big codices combining all of the NT into one book were made in the 4th century and later, the 4 gospels were always transmitted together, as were also the Paulines, as were also the "Apostolikon" (Acts + the General epistles, including 1-3 John), and lastly the Revelation all by its lonesome. Hebrews was always included as part of the Pauline corpus (although not at first, it did not start to get attached to it until later, and did not get transmitted individually either, as far as I know), while 1-3 John was always transmitted as part of the Apostolikon.

DCH

aa5874

It is also to be noted that the letters called the epistles of John do not have anywhere in them the name John as the author, quite unlike all the other epistles, except Hebrews.

Now, if letters of Peter, James, Jude and John are disputed, it means that Peter, James, Jude and John, if they lived, did not know themselves about the letters or all died before the letters were written.

This is therefore an indication that Jesus story writers or letter writers were not trustworthy at all.

gnosis92

Thanks, this is interesting. By Apostolikon though you don't mean Marcion's Apostolikon, which I understood to be Luke plus Pauline epistles.

DCHindley

When folks speak of NT manuscripts, they tended to be copied in groups.

These were:

e = Evangelion (4 canonical gospels, not including Acts)
a = Apostolikon (Acts + General epistles, meaning 1 + 2 Peter, James, Jude, and 1-3 John)
p = Pauline letters (started with the 13, then later included Hebrews)
r = The Revelation of John

There, the group known as "Apostolikon" likely gets its name due to the fact that it leads off with Acts of the Apostles, with the General epistles tagging along. Paul's letters were too extensive to get tucked in with Acts, so had its own grouping.

Marcion's "Apostolikon" (officially sanctioned scriptures) was supposed to consist of edited, and some argue original, versions of the gospel of Luke, + 10 letters of Paul (just the letters addressed to congregations, so not including the pastoral letters). Acts was not included.

I am not even sure this is even Marcion's own term for them. Regardless of whether it was invented by Marcion or later critics, it probably means something like "(genuine productions of the) Apostle (Paul)", shortened to "Apostolic." Marcion, and maybe some modern critics, consider Paul to be the true spiritual apostle of Jesus.

DCH

Cesc

2 and 3 John are both written by "the elder", perhaps a regional leader, so they can be regarded as being by the same author. 1 and 2 John have the same kind of language and theme so they too can be regarded as being by the same author, or by persons from a "Johannine school" or community. gJohn and 1 John share similarities too in style and language and so can be seen as written by the same author or school.

1 John could be also be regarded as a sort of correctional writing to clarify (possible misunderstandings of) gJohn.

gnosis92

So then the author first wrote Gjohn then wrote 1-3 john in that order, in response to some feedback he got from gjohn

Cesc

A theory is that 1 John was written in response to some kind of feedback from gJohn.
2 and 3 John are letters in their own right, apparantly from a certain presbyter. I dunno if its possible to establish in what order 1-3 John were written.