2 John
All the notice taken of the Revisers' work is to say “1 (and 5) “lady” add marg. Or, Cyria.” Either the British Committee have been remarkably successful, or the American company have not been clear-sighted, or some one else is disposed to be fastidious, which in any unfair sense I abhor. For there seem to be graver questions than of Cyria for “lady,” though so understood from Athanasius (not to speak of Syrr.) down to Bengel, Griesbach, De Wette, Lachmann and Tischendorf. Wetstein, Grotius, Bp. Middleton, like R. Stephens in his third edition of 1550 (not in those of 1546 and 1549); decided for Electa as the proper name. This however seems disproved by the last verse of the Epistle, where it would be equally harsh to consider that her sister bore the same name, or that the epithet should be used so equivocally, if it be a proper name in the first verse. There remains the more generally accepted sense given in the Authorized and Revised Versions and all the older English, save the Rhemish; whereas the Vulg. and Aethiopp. (if not the Sah. and Memph., which seem ambiguous) support “elect lady,” which Jerome took as symbolic of the catholic church, an alternative meaning in Cramer's Cat. Pat. Gr. viii. 146, as it was held by other ancients. It was an error no doubt, as was the application to Corinth, Philadelphia, Jerusalem; no less than the tradition which gave it to Drusia, Martha; or the Virgin Mary, each of whom has had a defender. But one sees not why in this case the anarthrous construction in 1 should be unheeded, “to an elect lady” dye. Where the sense requires the article as in 13, it is duly inserted. Some for another purpose have reasoned on the greeting, not of the elect sister, but only of her children, forgetting that she might be deceased or absent from the place whence John wrote, and in either case could not be included in the salutation sent. But the entire phrase, as it forbids the symbolical interpretation, general or particular, corroborates most simply the ordinary view, only with our indefinite article; which phrase may have been employed to veil the name of the lady, while the fact and duty are carefully recorded. In 3 no notice is taken of John's peculiar phrase παρά, “on the part of God,” not ἀπό, “from God” as in the Pauline Epistles. It is more intimate (cf. 4). That Cod. Sin.pm and more than ten cursives here read the more distant preposition ἀπό cannot shake the ordinary text, either here or, in some of them, the omission of the secondπαρά. It is a much more doubtful question whetherκυρίου “Lord” should be inserted in the same verse. High authorities plead for and against. It would be the solitary case, if genuine, of so designating Christ in John's Epistles; but then it is the solitary case of a full and solemn salutation. Still I cannot but regard it as no less questionable than other assimilations to the style of the apostle Paul. But had our American friends no compunction at the introduction into the version of the epistolary aorist or English present in 4, without even an intimation in the margin? In 3 John 3 they on the contrary give the proper aoristic sense to the text but the epistolary in the marg.! which involves the rest of the verse rather harshly in the same form. The perfect εὕρ. “I have found” does not prove it even in. this Second Epistle. He only intimates the permanence of the discovery, while he does not go, beyond the expression of a definite time of joy. On the question of εἴχαμεν or εἴχομεν in 5 we need not enter now, nor the true connection of ἵνα. The Revisers did well in abandoning the Text. Rec. and Authorized Version in 7; for “entered” (είοῆλθον), though supported by K L P and many cursives, &c. has no just sense, but ἐξῆλθον “went,” or are gone, “forth.” Compare 1 John 4:1, where there is no various reading in the corresponding word. On the other hand the same objection applies here as in 1 John 4:2, 3. It is not the bare fact that Jesus was to come in flesh, but His person as so coming, which the deceivers do not confess. The participle, it will be noticed, is abstract or, as Alford says, altogether timeless. And very energetic is the statement, that “the” deceiver and “the” antichrist meet in him who thus dishonors the incarnate Son of God, though there is one full and final person according to prophecy to sum up and close the dismal category in his own time, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy in person. In 8 reigns great confusion of copyists, who did not like the first person here, as being unusual and tampered with more or less from early times. The common text appears to be right. But the Text. Rec. of 9 is utterly wrong in παραβαίνων, “transgressing,” which flowed from prevalent feeling and ignorance, instead of προάγων, going forward or taking the lead, the contrast of abiding in the teaching or doctrine of Christ—the truth of His person. “Going before [you],” as Alford suggests, like John 10:4, is ridiculously poor and wrong. It is rather development, so characteristic of the school of tradition which deifies the church, or the yet more irrelevant invention of heresiarchs impatient to advance beyond the limits of revelation. Neither prizes the truth and nothing but the truth, both go outside the truth to its destruction, utterly ignorant of the whole truth, which Christ is at least as much as what He taught. The repetition of τ. χ. “of Christ,” in the latter half of the verse is superfluous. The oldest and best authorities not only omit this, but adhere to the order of “the Father and the Son,” contrary to A and Latin copies. In 10 “your” is uncalled for. Had more definiteness been intended it was open to the writer to have said rip or even to have added the pronoun: εἰς οἰκίαν is intentionally characteristic, or as we say “at home,” and all the more forcible in certain cases. The antichristian teacher, coming to set forth Christ, was neither to be received, nor even greeted. It is the most extreme case, because it is no question of intelligence or privilege like church matters, nor merely discipline, but of foundations: the Christ of God was at stake; and woe be to the man who betrays Him To confound this with other things; grave indeed in their measure, as some do who boast, is dense ignorance, and shows a lie in the right hand, which will work ruin. Here uncompromising rejection is but due to the injured Son of God. Even to greet is spurious sympathy and real sin. In 12 our “I was not minded” fairly meets οὐκ ἐβ. (better than ἠβ.) It is surprising that ἡμῶν “our” should not be preferred to ὑμῶν, “your.” If A B, a good many cursives, and most ancient Vv. sustain the latter, à K L P, many cursives, and ancient Vv. support the former, as the critics are rather evenly divided, Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, and Wordsworth for ἡ. as Alford, Lachmann, Tregelles, and the Cambridge Editors for ὑ. But the first person couples the apostle with those he is writing to, a weighty element in the joy of those concerned, which the second person leaves out, in my judgment to the weakening of the truth here conveyed.