{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/201/2010310.htm","path":"chr/ecf/201/2010310.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/201/2010310.htm","text":"On Bk. III. chap. 24, \u00a7 17 (note 18 continued).\nIn three places in the Church History (Bk. III. chap. 24, \u00a7 17, chap. 25, \u00a7 2, and chap. 39, \u00a7 16) John\u2019s \u201cformer\u201d epistle is referred to, as if he had written only two. In the last passage the use of \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 instead of \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 might be explained as Westcott suggests (Canon of the New Testament, p. 77, note 2), by supposing Eusebius to be reproducing the words of Papias; but in the other passages this explanation will not do, for the words are certainly Eusebius\u2019 own. In the Muratorian Canon only two epistles of John are mentioned, and in Iren\u00e6us the second epistle is quoted as if it were the first (see Westcott, ibid. p. 384, note 1). These facts lead Westcott to ask: \u201cIs it possible that the second epistle was looked upon as an appendix to the first? and may we thus explain the references to two epistles of John?\u201d He continues: \u201cThe first epistle, as is well known, was called ad Parthos by Augustine and some other Latin authorities; and the same title \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03a0\u20ac\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 is given to the second epistle in one Greek manuscript (62 Scholz). The Latin translation of Clement\u2019s Outlines (IV. 66) says: Secunda Johannis epistola qu\u00e6 ad virgines (\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2) scripta simplissima est. Jerome, it may be added, quotes names from the third epistle as from the second (De nom. Hebr.).\u201d On the other hand, in Bk. V. chap. 8, \u00a7 7, Eusebius speaks of the \u201cfirst\u201d (\u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7) epistle of John, and in Bk. III. chap. 25, \u00a7 3, he expressly mentions a second and third epistle of John. It is evident, therefore, that whatever the use of \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 instead of \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b7 in connection with John\u2019s first epistle may mean as used by others, it does not indicate a knowledge of only a first and second as used by him. It is by no means impossible, however, that Westcott\u2019s suggestion may be correct, and that the first and second epistles were sometimes looked upon as but one, and it is possible that such use of them by some of his predecessors may account for Eusebius\u2019 employment of the word \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 in three separate passages.","title":"Nicene and Ante-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol I: The Churc...","type":"page"}