208 Luca Marulli rhetoric in oral and written discourse. A first-century inhabitant of a city would naturally perceive the difference between a discourse given at a council hall regarding a decision to be made about a future course of action, a verdict given in a courtroom, or an eulogy praising the good deeds and moral qualities of the dead, even without necessarily being formally trained in the technicalities of deliberative, judicial, and epideictic rhetoric. Given the particular cultural setting, it is also very possible that the link between deliberative and epideictic rhetoric was commonly acknowledged, even though not systematized as in Aristotle and Quintilian. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to approach the letters of John assuming that the author was intentionally using some literary and rhetorical devices as he organized and structured his arguments. While the Elder of Third John might not have been formally trained in the arts of rhetoric, it is important to acknowledge that he lived in a time and place where rhetoric was generally used and practiced. Even if he did not have direct access to Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric, Rhetorica ad Herennium, or Quintilian’s Institutes, he surely was aware — because of his experience in and exposure to the public life — of the different styles, tools, and levels of persuasion (20). It is precisely because of his cultural setting that the Elder was prone to persuade by means of examples and analogies, by demonstrating his own credibility and honor, and by arousing feelings such as anger, shame, and the desire to emulate (21). For these reasons, it is necessary to gain further insight into the Elder ’s art of persuasion by using ancient manuals on rhetoric, not as the textbooks from which he draws his allegedly sophisticated figures of speech, but as sources that will enable us to better understand the culture and context in which the first century author wrote. Therefore, this study attempts to take a close look at the stylistic and rhetorical features contained in the structure of Third John, which undeniably falls within the epistolary genre. The text of the writing, its length, and its style clearly indicate that we are dealing with an ordinary letter, and not a literary work. While acknowledging the need to study Third John from a rhetorical perspective, we emphasize the fact that this short letter, which fits easily on a single sheet of papyrus, is not comparable to even the shortest of Cicero’s letters. Though the Elder surely used some common and widespread rhetorical devices, it seems too much to (20) Aristotle, Rhet. 1,9,35-36; Quintilian, Inst. 3,7,28. (21) Cf. the legacy of Aristotle’s classification of the three rhetorical appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos (Rhet. 1,2).