Talk:Second Epistle of John

Untitled

Yes, we can include the whole letter, but wouldn't it make more sense to summarize it instead? We can easily link to the article. Also, it doesn't say what translation is being used. john k 08:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do have a link at the bottom of the epistle that informs us the version is The New Revised Standard Version...what concerns me more is the statement, "Of the thirteen verses composing this epistle seven are in the First Epistle." What does that mean?

I question this statement "It is therefore the scholarly consensus that a single author composed both of these letters, although it has been doubted that the same person also wrote the Gospel of John, the First Epistle, or the Book of Revelation." Although there are probably those who doubt this, it is stated on all the other John wiki pages (not counting the one on Revelation) that it is a commonly held view by scholars that the Gospel and epistles have one author (or group of authors). Grailknighthero (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortest?

Certainly 2 John contains the fewest verses, but 3 John is the shortest book in the Bible by word count, even though it has 14 verses. (Using the KJV) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.159.208 (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Although II John has more words than III John, it has fewer characters, making it smaller in that regard as well. However, in Greek, III John has fewer characters and words, which is why III John follows II John. The 21 epistles of the NT were arranged first according to author and audience, then according to length. Thus, originally, II John was longer than III John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daktulios (talk • contribs) 13:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

gnostic teachings

I took out this section:

" however, during the first century, when Christianity began to spread, which is also when the letter was allegedly written, advocates of gnostic teachings would not have had enough clout, and could not have merited such a response."

since it seems to be OR. 03:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Epistle of John. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707193125/http://www.wlsessays.net/node/1759 to http://www.wlsessays.net/node/1759

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Claptrap

That John the Apostle wrote the Second Epistle of John is fundamentalist claptrap. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The identification of John the Apostle with John the Evangelist is quite old in Christian folklore. It predates Christian fundamentalism (late 19th century). Dimadick (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)