Why do some scholars question whether the “elder” mentioned in 2 John 1:1 is the Apostle John or a different author?

Definition of “the Elder” in 2 John 1:1

Second John begins with the salutation, “The elder, To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth—and not I alone, but also all who know the truth—” (2 John 1:1). This self-designation as “the elder” is unique. In typical first-century letters, authors named themselves more explicitly (e.g., “Paul, an apostle…”). Here, the writer simply calls himself “the elder,” prompting questions among some scholars about his identity.

Early Church Tradition and Testimony

From the earliest centuries, most in the Christian community viewed 2 John as penned by the Apostle John. Early church fathers such as Irenaeus (in Against Heresies, Book III) and Clement of Alexandria refer to Second and Third John in connection with the Apostle John.

Eusebius of Caesarea, in his “Ecclesiastical History” (Book III, Chapter 39), hints at confusion in Papias’s writings about multiple individuals named John. This reference has led to speculation that there may have been another prominent leader in the region—sometimes referred to as “John the Elder.” While Eusebius acknowledges that Papias distinguishes an “elder John” from the Apostle John, traditional Christian scholarship has largely maintained that both were, in fact, the same person: the Apostle John.

Stylistic and Theological Parallels with John’s Writings

Several lines of internal evidence tie 2 John to the Apostle John’s other writings:

1. Theme of Love and Truth

The letters of 1 John and 2 John emphasize love, obedience, and truth. For instance, 2 John 1:3 blesses believers with “grace, mercy, and peace” in truth and love, a consistent emphasis found in 1 John 4:7–8: “Beloved, let us love one another, because love comes from God…”

2. Vocabulary and Style

Certain key Greek terms appear frequently in the Gospel of John as well as in 1, 2, and 3 John—for example, words translated as “truth,” “love,” and “abide.” The distinctive mode of expression, including the repeated contrast between light and darkness, and love versus hatred, points strongly to a single authorial hand.

3. Christological Focus

All Johannine writings highlight Christ’s divinity, His coming “in the flesh” (2 John 1:7), and the necessity of adhering to the teaching of Christ. This high Christology aligns with the Gospel of John (e.g., John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word…”). Such deep theological continuity suggests the same author or school of authorship under John’s leadership.

Arguments for Identifying the Elder as John the Apostle

1. Historic and Continuous Attribution

The earliest manuscripts circulated under the assumption that 2 John was part of the Johannine corpus. The weight of early Christian testimony points consistently to the Apostle John, who was also referred to respectfully as “the elder” due to his advanced age and pastoral authority in the church.

2. Pastoral Authority Context

In both 2 and 3 John, the writer deals with hospitality issues, false teaching, and the need to uphold truth. Historically, the Apostle John ministered in Ephesus toward the end of his life, carrying both apostolic and pastoral influence. Referring to himself humbly as “the elder” could reflect his relational closeness to the congregations and his recognized status in the region.

3. Consistent Manuscript Support

Ancient papyri and codices that preserve these epistles do not indicate alternative authorship. Even though the identification is not explicitly spelled out in the text, no known variant reading or marginal note in the earliest surviving manuscripts suggests anyone else.

Arguments for a Separate “John the Elder”

1. Eusebius’s Reading of Papias

Eusebius interprets Papias as mentioning two Johns—John the Apostle and John the Elder. Although the same name is used, some conclude that the second John had to have been a distinct figure who authored 2 and 3 John. Those who hold this view argue that the elder self-designation suggests a lesser-known figure who was not an apostle.

2. Differing Self-Reference

In the Gospel of John, the writer never names himself plainly but uses phrases like “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21:20). In 1 John, he refers to his addressees as “my children” and speaks with an authoritative, paternal tone. Some argue that if 2 John were from the same pen, it would have followed a similar style of self-reference rather than simply saying, “the elder.”

3. Local Church Leadership Emphasis

The attempt by some scholars to identify a different individual also rests on the idea that the local church in Asia Minor had multiple leaders named John. This non-apostolic “elder” might have written short epistles to address immediate congregational concerns, focusing on practical truths and hospitality issues.

Nature of the Debate among Scholars

The discussion about the elder’s identity typically arises from textual nuances and external historical references. Scholars focused on critical methodology sometimes emphasize the possibility of different authors or co-authors in the same community.

Critics note that the brevity of 2 John and 3 John, the unique self-designation “the elder,” and the mention of traveling teachers in 2 John 1:10 create an epistolary style that some consider distinct from the broad theological reflections of 1 John.

Nevertheless, others counter that all three shorter epistles (1, 2, and 3 John) share broad theological concerns—defense of Christ’s incarnation, warning against deceivers, and love among believers. Differences in tone or style can be attributed to the specific needs of each letter rather than separate authorship.

Historical Weight in Favor of the Apostle John

Patristic testimony, manuscript attributions, and the theological unity with the Gospel of John and 1 John are strong points favoring the Apostle John as the author of 2 John. Intriguingly, despite speculation, no surviving early church writer explicitly claims that someone other than the Apostle John wrote 2 John. Even Eusebius, who discusses Papias’s two Johns, stops short of denying the Apostle’s authorship of 2 John and 3 John.

Summary of the Scholarly Questioning

1. Multiple Johns in the Early Church: Some scholars question authorship due to potential confusion between John the Apostle and John the Elder mentioned by Papias.

2. Stylistic Nuances: Divergence in self-reference and writing style might suggest a second author.

3. Brief Epistolary Format: The short, letter-like nature of 2 John and 3 John can appear different from the more extensive commentary in 1 John or the narrative in the Gospel of John.

Yet, given the strong manuscript tradition, the continuity of Johannine vocabulary, and the unanimous testimony of early Christians, many devoted interpreters conclude that the “elder” is indeed the Apostle John, speaking lovingly and pastorally from his advanced years and recognized authority.

Conclusion

Most who study the text from a historically faithful standpoint continue to affirm the Apostle John as the author of 2 John, noting the earliest church tradition, the consistent witness of manuscripts, and unmistakable thematic parallels with other Johannine writings. While some scholars raise questions about identity based on stylistic factors and historical references, the prevailing testimony from the early church and internal evidence strongly supports the conclusion that “the elder” in 2 John 1:1 refers to the beloved disciple and apostle, John.