The Battle of the Little John Letters (2 John vs 3 John)

Tomb of John the Apostle in Ephesus (Selçuk, Turkey)

One cannot examine the relationship between 2 John and 3 John without looking at the wider picture of the Apostle whose name was ascribed as author of these two works. And especially the role his legend played in the struggle of the structure of the emerging Church from a rag tag collection of house churches founded by itinerant preachers, which after some significant time grew into more formal organizations with dedicated houses of worship ("synagogues" is the word used in the New Testament).

And no place was this legend more at the fore than Ephesus, where for all the world it appears that John replaced Paul as the patron saint, but only after great factional struggle. The replacement seems to have been not just limited to Ephesus, but probably all of Asia Minor and Anatolia. It is a struggle that left it's mark in several books of the New Testament. [1]

John the Apostle, by El Greco, 1609 Toledo Spain

The Johannine literature's place in the New Testament has been subject to debate and uncertainty for quite some time. While the debate over authorship has reached a semi-consensus for diversity, where the author of the Gospel and 1 John is not the author or 2 John and 2 John, and another author altogether for Revelation, there remains confusion over the legend of John and his role as a patron saint.

A great deal of lore and literature has been associated with the Apostle John. Beside the fourth gospel, Revelation, and the three letters addressed from John we find in the New Testament, there are also the apocryphal books: The Apocryphon of John (Secret Revelation of John) and The Acts of John. In addition, from the reading of the fourth gospel, the tradition arose early on that the beloved disciple [2] was in fact the Apostle John, son of Zebedee, one of the three Pillars, along with his brother James (Jacob) and Peter (Cephas). The Apocryphon of John is not very relevant to our discussion, as it is a late gnostic tract that does not engage in the legend of the saint much beyond borrowing his name, except that in using the name it shows that John, who may well have been the Catholic substitute for Paul as a patron saint in Ephesus, had become established as a figure even acceptable for gnostics to attach his name.

Far more relevant are the Acts of John, a work which although in the form we have today is late, appears to have much earlier elements. But most importantly it places John in Ephesus as a founder, the one who participates the Artemus Temple debates and has the power to bring down that temple. [3] We compare this to Acts chapter 19:

While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples.
And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?"
They said, "Into John's baptism."  

Acts, by what looks like transfer of John the son of Zebedee into John the Baptist, is hinting to us that the underlying story had Christian disciples(!) of John (son of Zebedee) already, and we are told in verse 7 that "There were about twelve of them in all." He "lays hands on them" and they are converted and the spirit enters them. This is not the first instance of disciples of John at Ephesus, as in Acts 18:24-28 we see this Apollos had come to Ephesus and knew only John

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John.
He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately. ...

This is curious. Priscilla and Aquila, but not Paul, come in contact with Apollos and convert him to a "more accurate" form of Christianity, that presumably of Paul. Apollos too learned from John, only for him we are not told which John. It seems more than a little improbable for John the Baptist, who was only known in the Jordan Valley, to have possibly have converted anyone in Asia Minor. This had to be John the Apostle, son of Zebedee, and the source text must have referred to this John. [4] Apollos appears in 1 Corinthians 1:12 as who is associated with baptism, which seems to delineate the congregation along sect lines, depending upon which preacher's teaching they are baptized. [5] These sects, which 1 Corinthians and Acts are looking back in distant time to the legendary apostles, also would likely associate with a patron saint, and Apollos logically with John. Of note the passage in 1 Corinthians 1:14 mentions Gaius as one of the two the text says Paul himself baptized, presumably in Ephesus, but it's not stated. (Note, 1 Corinthians 1:16, placed in parenthesis in the RSV translation,  is a later addition to give another family "founders" status.)

Artemis, 2nd century CE

Gaius also appears in Acts 19:29ff, marched off, along with fellow Macedonian Aristarchus, by the Ephesian mob riled up by craftsmen Demetrius [6] who made idols for the temple of Artemis. The story is of course apocryphal, showing exploit's of Paul's disciples in Ephesus. It concerns the same conflict with the local supporters of Artemis as the Acts of John which place John there. We have two conflicting traditions of Paul and John in Ephesus at play; Paul in Acts at a distance never himself in Ephesus (19:30), but via proxy of relics (Acts 19:12) and disciple; while in the Acts of John it is John himself who performs the miracles.

All the above, which is far more than I normally dwell on Apocrypha and legend, is background for to support the notion of John as a rival to Paul for patron saint of Ephesus and in fact all of Asia Minor. Robert Price argues this is part of an emerging Catholic strategy to wrest control of the Pauline churches of the Marcionite and Charismatic sects from them for the larger church, by replacing a problematic patron saint, Paul, with another made safe, John son of Zebedee. But I think this is not accurate, as John also has Gnostic traditions and problematic acceptance just as Paul does. The politics may be far more local. Remember also that John the Baptist and John the Apostle may in fact be the same legend in two forms.

So now we have the background to read the opening of 3 John 1-4:

The elder (πρεσβύτερος) to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth:

Beloved, I pray also that in all things you may prosper with sound opinion (ὑγιαίνειν), just as your soul prospers. For I rejoiced when brethren came and testified to your truth, that is, how you are walking in truth. I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.

The legend of Gaius is invoked to lend make plausible the authenticity of the letter. But what immediately follows is an identification of Gaius, or rather his legend, with a true doctrine - that is as the author of the letter would have it "love in truth", "testified to your truth", "walking in the truth." That Gaius is associated with the Ephesus is made clear in verse 12, when we are told:

Demetrius has testimony from every one, and from the truth itself; I testify to him too, and you know my testimony is true.

Demetrius is of course the name the Ephesian "silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis" (Acts 19:24). He seems to have transformed from a pagan idol maker into a Christian authority, though the exact position is not given, it is above an ordinary disciple since he is the one people testify to, as if a minister or even bishop of another church. [7] But the exact position is not important. What is clear is that 3 John's author has dipped into the legend of John in Ephesus to choose his characters addressed in the letter, specifically Gaius and Demetrius, to convince the readers this is a genuine letter from the Apostle John.

So what then is the purpose of the letter? What issue is it concerned with, and why was it necessary? The answer becomes quite clear when look at the next section, 3 John 5-8:

Beloved, you perform faithfully (πιστὸν) when you do work (ἐργάσῃ) for the brethren, especially when they are strangers (ξένους), who have testified to your love before the church (ἐκκλησίας). You will do well to send them off provisioned (προπέμψας) in a manner worthy (ἀξίως) of God. For they went forth on behalf of the name (ὀνόματος), accepting nothing from the pagan peoples (ἐθνικῶν). Thus we are obligated (ὀφείλομεν ) to support (ὑπολαμβάνειν) such as these, that we may be their fellow workers (συνεργοὶ) in the truth.

The language here is quite specific. The author is giving blanket support to Christian missionaries, the itinerant preachers -strangers (ξένους) to the congregation and local church leaders- who go from town to town and seek both to convert new members and to inspire the established churches. It is an act of faith to give hospitality (ὑπολαμβάνειν) and provisions (προπέμψας) "in a manner worthy of God" (ἀξίως) to these preachers, who follow the code we find in the Gospels (Luke 10:1-11, Mark 6:7-12, Matthew 10:5-14), taking only minimal provisions. The work they do is critical in the author's view, most probably their role in establishing new churches and finding new converts in their travels. The local congregations they pass along the way are obligated to support them as it benefits the larger church, and by so doing they become coworkers (συνεργοὶ) in the churches missionary work.

Resistance to the itinerant preachers, such they they are not received nor supported by local congregations they visit on their missions certainly is not something you would expect to see in the in the first generation or two after the churches were founded - and founded by itinerant preachers! The church has already long solidified into a well structured institution, with bishops and elders asserting strong local authority. This resistance to traveling preachers and the larger church organization has been a recurring theme in Christianity from these early days to the present. It is the clash between the deeply established order and the evangelism, between institutional orderly piety and charismatic worship.

Once a local See, that is a major church such as Ephesus, Alexandria or Antioch which establishes itself as the dominant hub for the churches of a region, the forces to control the local resources and keep them for local purposes becomes powerful. Further to understand the origins of this conflict we also need to consider where the itinerant preachers come from. Initially they must have come forward from monasteries with Jesuit like intensity allowed Christianity to percolate and take form in the first place; where zealous and well trained monks got their training that made them as effective as the Jesuits a millennia and half later. [8] But by the time 2 and 3 John are written it is quite probable that the great congregations were the source of the preachers sent out, and they likely crossed into the territory of other bishops. So some of the hostility we see from at least the 3rd or 4th generations of these local Christian churches depicted in 3 John arose from these territorial rivalries, as much if not more than the theological variances between them. This we perhaps see reflected in 3 John 9-10

I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who desires to be first (φιλοπρωτεύων) among them, does not receive (ἐπιδέχεται) us. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to the deeds (ἔργα) he is doing, bringing idly charges against us with malicious discourse (λόγοις). And not contented with that, not only will he himself not receive (ἐπιδέχεται) the brethren, he also forbids (κωλύει) those who want to welcome them and casts them out (ἐκβάλλει) of the church (ἐκκλησίας).

When it says "I have written something to the church", the text is speaking of another letter penned as coming from John, that is 2 John. But this comment is an interpolation, as author of 3 John does not endorse that letter, but rather seeks to replace it, as we shall see, because it was penned by an opponent, with an unacceptable teaching. The Catholicizing editor wrote ἔγραψά τι τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, to harmonize the two letters, reflecting a later church opinion that found both letters useful.

In verse 9, we see that he identifies his opponent as Diotrephes, but as the letter is pretending to be from an earlier era, when the apostle John was thought to have roamed, we must assume this is a stand in, perhaps the predecessor of the actual opponent, from whom that person claims to derive his authority. But the rest of the description is of that person and in the present. Diotrephes is identified as one who claims to be leader, φιλοπρωτεύων or literally "first among friends", that is the brethren. And he does not receive John, much as the current bishop,  whom Diotrephes is a stand in for, does not receive the author, whom John is a stand in for. Or put another way he does not accept his authority, as many English translations of the verse state.

What this bishop, represented by Diotrephes, is doing is not receiving the wandering preachers, who appear to be coming from the author's church. As he identifies with them when he says that "bringing idly charges us with malicious discourse (λόγοις)", where the "us" refers collectively to the wandering preachers as well as the author, who puts himself on the same level as this Diotrephes - that is as a bishop; never mind the self identification as a mere elder in verse 1. The use of the term logos to describe what Diotrophes says, is to say that the charges are in the form of an ecclesiastical discourse, where he is making claims --incorrectly in the author's view, and thus malicious-- that the preachers are teaching something unacceptable. And this makes sense, as that would be the logical grounds not to accept a fellow Christian preacher.

It should be noted, Diotrephes (Διοτρέφης) literally means "nourished by Jove", that is draws his sustenance from Jupiter/Zeus, the chief god in the Roman and Greek pantheon, which is the equivalent of YHWH the Jewish God. This subtly suggest Diotrephes is a moniker for a proto-orthodox bishop, whose theology puts God above Christ.

What is more, logos implies a writing, and precisely the writing in view at the start of verse 9, penned in the name of John, In fact 2 John. The author of 3 John is identifying the author of that letter as his opponent, the one claiming his authority derives from Diotrephes, and that this ancestor of his -if we consider him a real person- appointment from came John. But the writer of 3 John, by identifying Diotrephes as an opponent is in effect undercutting the claim of authority of his rival by making him an opponent of the very patron saint he claims to have been appointed by. But we need to conclude 3 John 11-15.

Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God. Demetrius has testimony from every one, and from the truth (ἀληθείας) itself; We testify also, and you know our testimony is true. 

I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face.

Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends, every one of them.

The conclusion of the letter comes back to a general comment on doctrine, of not imitating those who do evil, that is the example of Diotrophes, rather imitate the good of greeting and supporting the itinerant preachers who come to town. I have already commented on Demetrius, how his role has risen from pagan silversmith of Artemis idols to Christian hero, part of the general focus on Ephesus as the leading church. The statement of testimony by the truth (ἀληθείας) is a reference to what is considered good and sound Christian teaching. The author makes note that the truth's testimony is from John's writings (ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐστιν). Verse 13 gives away that the author is not John, as he implies there will be other letters and books coming, but the reader is in on it, aware that John is from the distant past. But the mechanism puts a "if only" thought in the readers mind, that had John been able to come these troubles would have been cut off and the line of Diotrophes stunted.

That Other Letter

For the teaching (λόγοις) of a doctrine that refuses itinerant preachers we must turn to 2 John. We will see this in the course of our examination. We start with 2 John 1-6:

The elder (πρεσβύτερος) to the elect lady (ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ) and her children, whom I love in the truth, and not only I but also all who know the truth, because of the truth which abides in us and will be with us for ever (αἰῶνα):

Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Father's Son, in truth and love.

I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children following the truth, just as we have been commanded by the Father. And now I beg you, lady, not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we follow his commandments; this is the commandment, as you have heard from the beginning, that you follow love.

It has always been recognized that the chosen lady (ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ) is metaphorically the church (ἐκκλησίᾳ), and her children metaphorically the local congregation. We have here the ἔγραψά τι τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ mentioned in 3 John 9 by the redactor. The same self definition for John the Apostle as the elder is here, telling us a relationship exists. The emphasis in the passage on truth, tells us we are dealing with a dispute focused on Christian doctrine. The author of 2 John limits his greeting to "all who know the truth", meaning who adhere to the same doctrine. This includes the members of the local church congregation he is speaking to.

We see the author of 2 John uses pastiches from the Gospel of John (verse 5, John 13:34), and 1 John (verse 6, 1 John 5:3; verse 7, 1 John 2:22; verse 12, 1 John 1:4, also ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς occurs in multiple spots, John 8:25 perhaps in view), which I colored purple. This merely confirms the author comes from a circle that revered John, even though his theology is at odds with the Johannine gospel.

There is here no distinguishing feature of the author's theology, which would be at home with pretty much any sect from Valentinian to Orthodox, except perhaps in verse 3, where he places emphasis on "Jesus Christ the Father's Son", which implies an opposing opinion as to who the father of Jesus is, which is a proto-orthodox concern about Gnostics who deny the Jewish God was Jesus' father. The proto-orthodox position of the writer also is apparent when his greeting is "from God the Father" first as opposed to the Pauline formula "God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (10 of the 13 letters, and 1 Peter; omitted in 1 Thessalonians, some  variance in Titus and Colossians) which shows this separation he opposes. 

To this point we have simply a vague Catholic epistle that merely hints at gnostic type opponents. But for the subject which 3 John responded to we need to look at 2 John 7-9:

For many deceivers/wanderers (πλανοι) have gone out into the world, men who will not acknowledge the appearance (ἐρχόμενον) of Jesus Christ in the flesh; such a one is the deceiver (πλάνος) and the antichrist (ἀντίχριστος). Look to yourselves, that you may not destroy (μὴ ἀπολέσητε) what you have worked for (εἰργασάμεθα), but may win a full reward. Any one who gets carried away(προάγων) and does not abide in the doctrine (διδαχή) of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine (διδαχή) has both the Father and the Son.

We get the first real indication of who the author is talking about in verse 7 when he singles out "deceivers" or "wanderers/vagabonds" (πλάνος) who"have gone out into the world." The double meaning of the word for deceiver and vagabond type of wanderer" who is concerned with whether whether Jesus appeared in the flesh or not (ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί) sounds very much like a wandering preacher (compare 1 Timothy 4:1, and 4:3 for an example of the association with encratic teachings and implied spiritual Christ = πνεύμασιν πλάνοις). The same root word is for wandering star or planet (πλανήτης) which is to describe the heretics opposed in Jude 13. Again we are looking at itinerant preachers as the targets of this vitriol. The author of 2 John associates their message of a spiritual Christ as at odds with the Christ who appear in the flesh (ἐν σαρκί), thus against Christ (ἀντίχριστος).
Worst of all from his standpoint they corrupt the flock in 2 John's view, destroying (ἀπολέσητε) what they are working for (εἰργασάμεθα).

Th author now stretches his condemnation to anyone "who gets carried away" (προάγων) with the teachings of the wandering preachers and goes afoul of the doctrine/teaching (διδαχή) of Christ, that is Jesus Christ appearing in the flesh, "does not have God." And from the author's stand point, where the creator and law giving God is the father of Christ ἐν σαρκί, the spiritual Christ of the itinerant preachers is often associated with the Gnostic father and discards the creator and law giving God. He is now using it as a litmus test of his "true" church, where those who adhere to the teachings have the Father and Son.

This leads to an admonition against supporting the current day itinerant preachers, and by so doing seems to reject the missions described in the synoptic gospels (Luke 10:1-11, Mark 6:7-13, Matthew 10:5-14), as shocking as it sounds in verses 10-11:

If any one comes to you and does not bring (φέρει) this doctrine (διδαχὴν), do not receive him into the house (μὴ λαμβάνετε αὐτὸν εἰς οἰκίαν) and do not greet (χαίρειν) him; for he who greets him partakes fellowship (κοινωνεῖ) in his evil work (τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς).  

The ones coming are obviously outsiders, strangers, that is traveling. They are to be tested on whether they are bringing the doctrine -of Christ in the flesh-, and if they are not, then don't let them into the house; this also means the church "house." In fact he says you should not even greet (χαίρω) him. And if you do greet (χαίρω) him, you are just as guilty by association as that preacher.

These two verses (10-11) are precisely the conduct and rules the author of 3 John 9-10 accuses Diotrephes of performing (ἔργα). He not only refuses receive (ἐπιδέχεται) the traveling brethren, but also anyone who does or wishes to greet them he forbids (κωλύει) and expels from the church (ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐκβάλλει). 3 John author is directly responding to this order, laying out in 3 John 6-8, that because these preachers go out in "the name," that is Jesus Christ, and taking nothing from non-Christians, they must rely on Christians only. Thus supporting them is duty. Further the author of 3 John states that in supporting the itinerant preachers and provisioning them (προπέμψας), you do become their coworkers (συνεργοὶ), but not in evil works as 2 John's author claims, buter in truth. 

2 John then wraps up:

Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

The children of your elect sister greet you.

The comment about ink in paper, and preferring to meet face to face was loosely copied in 3 John, and for the same reason, to explain the letter's lateness in appearing and leaving the door open for new teachings, or at least doctrinal clarifications. John of course is long dead, so this meeting never happens, as the early audience surely grasped. Then 2 John 12 appends a pastiche of 1 John 1:4 in purple.

The sign off makes it clear it is from one church to another, sister to sister, and members of the congregation, the children. When speaking of a church here it is useful to think of each region, much like you still see today in Latin American countries like Peru, that a "mother church" usually in a major city for a region, is where all the bishop resides, and where all the churches in the small towns surrounding bring their most prized icon for big celebrations. I saw that first hand last year for Corpus Christi in Cusco, Peru. While nothing so elaborate is envisioned here, there were by the time of this letter's writing, main churches with satellite smaller churches in the surrounding region. Some of these, like Ephesus we know from various records of the early church, but many dozens of others from the same era are unknown.

The author of 2 John appears to be a bishop of one of these main churches and is writing peer to peer, one church ("elect sister") to another, in an authoritative way. The author of 3 John 9 objects to this assumption of higher status over his own main church in some likely neighboring region, saying his peer (and rival) Diotrephes puts himself first among friends (φιλοπρωτεύω), that is his bishophood above his peers or friends. This equal status is emphasized in the sign off of 3 John 15 when he says "the friends send you their greetings, greet our friends by name." The friends are the fellow bishops of this Diotrephes, and they are saying he should receive them and acknowledge them by name, thus as equals, and by extension also the itinerant preachers send by these other bishops.

Conclusions:

Most scholarship presumes the 2 John and 3 John were written by the same author due to the similar language and the similarity of topic and the same formula for self identification, opening and closing. But these are only superficial similarities, the result of 3 John imitating 2 John precisely because the author intended to replace that letter. Such opinions are also driven by a desire to maintain the traditional model of John being the author of all the letters and the gospel bearing his name. But the Sitz im Leben of the issues solidly place all the material well into the 2nd century, and generations after the organization of the church is established and in place. The use of pastiche to mimic prior Johannine literature is also a strong indicator of diverse authorship in the collection, and esecially between 2 John and 3 John, although possibly some of the language in the opening address and the closing farewells was modified by the one who bound the collection of letters to John together.

It should be noted that the letters are in fact pseudonymous, simply identified as the elder in the opening greeting. However practice in all the early manuscripts would have been to prefix or append the title, Ίωάννου β/γ for 2/3 John. There is no evidence the letters circulated without title. Since 3 John was attempting to emulate 2 John, and mentioned characters drawn from the stories of John in Ephesus, it seems reasonable to conclude from it's earliest circulation 2 John must have been title "John" and thus 3 John also circulated with the same title. This is also likely given the heavy borrowing 2 John made of Johannine phrases from 1 John (verse 12) and the Gospel of John (verse 6, 7), in an effort to pass off the writing as from John. [9]

It is readily apparent that the entire content of 3 John is meant as answer to 2 John and how local churches should support itinerant preachers. The borrowing of opening identification as the elder and of the pen/paper and ink phrase suggests the intent was in fact to replace 2 John. These probably circulated as rival letters before the church found use for both and they were collected. If I am correct, the Catholic editor only needed to add the comment about another letter in 3 John 9 to tie the two together and to break up the direct conflict of the two letters. For the later Church, both messages rang true. The Catholicizing Church was sending out it's own preachers, and did want those supported, but at the same time they were interested in crippling the evangelizing activities of their gnostic rivals.

The Johannine Gospel and letters focus on this Asia Minor conflict, between the gnostic type teachers and the increasing power of the emerging Catholic Church that began a policy of throwing out of the local churches those who professed gnostic type teachings.  Both camps, as we can see from the literature, appealed to John as a patron saint, and hence "author" of books and letters, to support their positions. The itinerant preacher 3 John embraced and 2 John rejected were perhaps the focal point of this contest for the legacy of the patron saint John. Certainly we also have played out in 2 John one bishop attempting to assert authority over his fellow bishops, and in 3 John a strong refutation of that position.

It seems the legacy of John was fought over just as intensely as the legacy of Paul.

Note to Joseph D L:

Your comment about John chapter 3 inspired me to write this piece. And it came about because I misread your comment in haste, thinking it was 3 John, specifically 3 John 14 (oops!). Truth is I wanted to write about 2 John and 3 John for some time; so it's a good thing I sometimes go full Emily Litella. Well it's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I must thank you for riling me up; this was a inspiration for a productive piece.

I'll reply in properly in a letter to your comments on John 3 (not 3 John; I need better glasses) tomorrow. BTW, I think you meant John 14:15-27, as John 3 is not about the Paraclete but about being born anew. Neither has anything to do with Paul IMO.



Footnotes and Digressions:
------------------------------------
[1] Robert M. Price gives a good summary in Paulus Absconditus: Paul versus John in the Ephesian Tradition [http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_abscond2.htm]
[2] This identification shows up in Eusubius, EH 3.31.3, when he mentions a letter from Polycrates to Victor of Rome (again a dubious promotion of Roman See primacy) which for some strange reason includes a highly tangential digression of naming patron saints unrelated to the Paschal issue the letter supposedly addresses, is appended to the actual text here (bold is likely "original"):

We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints.

And the follows the legendary stuff Victor apparently has to be reminded of (as the highest church leader, it's amazing to think he knows none of the lore):

Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumeneia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the Passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith.

And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not frightened by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man'...I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus.

The main thing to note, is that Polycrates is claiming hereditary right to his bishophood, descending from John as the patron saint. This seems utterly irrelevant, unless his advise was unsolicited and unwanted by Victor. IMO the letter was an invention for the purpose of a relative of Polycrates being seated in Nicene.
[3] See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actsjohn.html which places John in Ephesus. It is a layered work, some likely early and much of it late or borrowed from other sources, Canonical and otherwise. (Remember, Apocrypha and Patristic writings enjoyed none of the protections of Canon, making them fair game for amending for several hundreds of years well into the Renaissance)
[4] Of course, it is quite possible there is but one John, who has morphed into two characters, John the Baptist who comes before Jesus, and John the Apostle who comes before Paul. Robert Price suggests as much, noting the malleability of legends. (I have a similar opinion of the Simon characters, that they are all one, but have split into two heroes, Simon Peter and Simon Magus/Paul)
[5] D.A. 1.18, both Latin and Greek reads – ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ for the Marcionite version of 1 Corinthians 1:12, which I think is correct. In my view a scribe who did not understand the verse as referring to different sects of Christians, added it without realizing he in effect lowered Jesus to a mere bishop or sect leader who baptized.
[6] The author of Acts 19, or perhaps it's source, has some fun with names. Artemis is the Greek goddess of hunting, but here defender Demetrius' name (Δημήτριος) literally means 'belongs to Ceres' the Roman goddess of agriculture, or her Greek equivalent Demeter (Δημήτηρ). There is no way the Greek author was unaware of the irony. It should be noted that Ceres was also the patron or guardian of Roman Plebian law (free citizens, neither Patrician aristocracy nor salves), and trails would be heard her the temple in Rome. This may be a may joke in 3 John 12 giving testimony to Demetrius.
[7] The Apostolic Constitutions 7.46 names Demetrius as the first bishop of Philadelphia, who was appointed by Peter. The constitutions are written in Peter's voice. Current opinion dates these 375 to 380 AD. I mention this late work, because it shows how the myth of characters grow.
[8]  I have expounded elsewhere my opinion that Christianity arose from what must have been Jewish monastic movements such as the Theraputae Philo spoke about near Alexandria. My suspicion is these groups may have started as diaspora Jewish, but as they were celibate communities of men and women, they replaced their membership by recruiting from the local Greek speaking populations, with gentiles replacing Jews almost entirely within a few generations. These monasteries according to Philo existed all over the Greek speaking areas of the Mediterranean. Christianity developed in these isolated intense communities and spread there first. The NT and the birth of Christianity is largely a story of these monks and nuns recruiting ordinary lay people to join the movement and set up house churches among the general population in their own towns and cities. They were already Greek speakers and skilled at recruiting monks and nuns, but they used this instead to recruit regular people. Whether these monasteries continued or they moved to the churches they founded is unclear. It is very probable schools where established among the churches of larger more prosperous congregations, as these would have been easier to maintain than the isolated mendicant camps.
[9] All the NT books are pseudonymous, taking the name of the hero whose authority the author wished to associated his work.