Scaling Gaius and Diotrephes: Socio-economic Stratification in 1 and 3 John

Abstract

The Johannine epistles offer a glimpse into the real-life struggles of early Jesus followers. And yet, for all the insight these letters provide into the goings-on of such communities, what they may say regarding the issue of socio-economic scaling and/or stratification is seldom pursued. Though scholars do occasionally make mention of the presence of wealthy members in the community on the basis of language in 1 Jn 3.17 and the presence of Gaius and Diotrephes in 3 John, little is said beyond the fact that there might be some ‘wealthy’ church members. Thus, in the present study I propose to take what little can be said about the Johannine epistles regarding their socio-economic setting and bring it into conversation with Longenecker’s work on wealth scaling in order to help put as fine a point as possible on what one might ascertain about social stratification in 1–3 John. Furthermore, the claim that Gaius is a wealthy householder, a position generally assumed rather than argued, is bolstered through an analysis of demographic data and the financial costs associated with hospitality.

From ‘Selves’ to ‘One Another’: A Hospitable Proposal for a Post-Colonial Missions Paradigm of Interdependence

“…The problem here seems not to be a "heresy controversy, but rather a power struggle," 42 shaped by honor-shame dynamics, 43 and economic disparities. 44 It seems that Diotrephes' selfish desire "to be first," his grasping for preeminence in the church, and his desire not to lose his influence are the motivations behind his rejection of godly workers. 45 Diotrephes' core concern seems to be centered on his own power and position.…”

Negotiating Complexity within the Dialectical and Cosmopolitan Johannine Situation

“…On Diotrephes and hospitality, see(Malherbe 1983;Carman 2020).27On Johannine tensions with proto-Ignatian Petrine hierarchy, see(Agourides 1968;Anderson 2007b;Drodge 1990;Käsemann [1968Käsemann [ ] 2017Maynard 1984;Quast 1989;Von Harnack 1897).28…”