John or John? Who Wrote 2 and 3 John?

Two disciples of Jesus lived in Asia Minor during the end of the first century: John the Apostle and John the Elder. Some thought John the Elder wrote 2 and 3 John.

The three epistles written by John in the New Testament underwent fascinating historical debates in the early centuries of the church. While 1 John enjoys universal acceptance from the earliest days of Christianity, the shorter letters—2 and 3 John—traveled a slightly more complicated path into the biblical canon.

Early Testimony

Origen, writing in the early 200s, knew of John's letters but acknowledged some uncertainty around the shorter epistles:

"But John, at last, having taken up his residence in Ephesus, is said to have written only the Gospel. However, he also left an epistle of very few lines, and, perhaps, a second and a third; for not all admit these to be genuine. But both together do not contain a hundred lines." (qtd in Eusebius, HE 6.25.10)

By 325 AD, Eusebius confirmed that while 1 John was universally accepted, some Christians disputed the status of 2 and 3 John:

"Among the disputed books, which are nevertheless known to most, are the epistle known as that of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name." (HE 3.25.2)

Not a Question of Legitimacy

When Eusebius describes these letters as "disputed," he's referring specifically to their inclusion in the biblical canon, not questioning their legitimacy. He doesn't place them in his category of "spurious" writings. Rather, when he notes these writings are "known to most," he means that the majority of Christians included them in the canon, with only a minority expressing doubts.

The debate was never about whether these were valuable Christian texts but whether they should be counted among Scripture.

The Two Johns Question

The primary reason for hesitation about 2 and 3 John likely stemmed from questions about authorship. As Eusebius notes, some wondered "whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name." (HE 3.5.2)

This confusion can be traced back to Papias of Hierapolis (early 100s AD), who wrote about the early Asian church:

"If ever anyone came who had carefully followed the presbyters, I inquired as to the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what Aristion and the presbyter John, the Lord's disciples, were saying." (HE 3.39.4)

Eusebius observes the double use of John's name, reasonably inferring that Papias knew of two different Johns who lived in Asia Minor during the late first century:

"His mentioning the name of John twice is worth noting here. The first of these he reckons along with Peter and James and Matthew and the other Apostles, meaning clearly the Evangelist, but the other John, after expanding his statement, he places outside the number of the Apostles, placing Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter." (HE 3.39.4)

Eusebius adds that there were even "two tombs in Ephesus and each of these even today is said to be John's." (HE 3.39.4)

Authorship vs. Canonicity

The debate seems centered more on authorship than canonical status. While churches read and valued these letters, some Christians wondered whether John the Elder or John the Apostle wrote them.

When we examine the historical evidence, it becomes clear that both John the Apostle and John the Elder ministered in Asia Minor, and both were disciples of Jesus. Given their partnership in gospel ministry, it's reasonable that they would share similar writing styles and theological perspectives. Both were eyewitnesses to Jesus and followed him during his earthly ministry.

At the same time, 2 and 3 John sound similar to John the Apostle’s other writings. And further, while a minority report did question which John wrote the letters, most still believed that John the Apostle did. So we should not overplay the difficulties that 2 and 3 John give us when it comes to their canonicity.

Conclusion

I believe 2 and 3 belong to John the Apostle due to the similarity in style with his other writings and because of the longstanding tradition pointing to him as the author. But even if they were penned by John the Elder, nothing in my faith would be harmed. Both Johns followed the Lord.

Despite these questions of authorship, Christians have recognized 2 and 3 John as worth reading and interpreting in the church since earliest days. I continue to do so along with billions of other Christians to this day.