210 Luca Marulli BGU II,632 [II CE]), Third John’s mention of it in the exordium of the letter rather than in its opening, and the combination of the verbs eu[comai and uJgiaivnw, is unique (27). This is no accident: the Elder is already trying to gain Gaius’ positive acceptance of the letter, and the very mention of his desire to see Gaius’ health prosper “as your soul is prospering” (kaqw;" eujodouvtai, sou hJ yuchv) is a praise of Gaius’ spiritual life (28). A common feature of any persuasive discourse is to ingratiate the listener. Third John therefore uses the health wish as what a rhetor would call a captatio benevolantiae: an attempt to gain the listener’s (or reader’s) goodwill and attention by using praises drawn from the audience itself (29). The expression of joy which immediately follows (v. 3) is a common feature in ancient correspondence, especially as a reaction to good news about the recipient’s wellbeing (30). The function of this thanksgiving was, again, to put “the readers in a benevolent mood to receive the message which may contain a demand or even a warning”(31). The reason for the Elder’s joy is that Gaius walks “in truth”. Interestingly enough, the Elder uses redundancy and repetition to express his feelings and portray Gaius as a praiseworthy person. Firstly, consider the assonance of the words ejcavrhn (“I rejoiced”, v. 3) and caravn (“joy”, v. 4) (32). Secondly, there is a duplication of the same sentence: ejn ajlhqeiva/ peripatei'" (v. 3) and ejn th/' ajlhqeiva/ peripatounta (v. 4) both refer to Gaius’ commendable general way of v living (cf. 1 John 1,6-7.2,6; 2 John 4; 1 Cor 3,3). Thirdly, the triple repetition of the word “truth” in vv. 3-4 clearly directs the reader’s attention to a well known topos in the ancient world: truth and truthfulness as an honorable reality and quality, respectively (33). (27) FUNK, “Form and Structure”, 425 notes that the combination of these two verbs is not found either in the NT or in the Apostolic Fathers. The only instance is in P. Oxy XVI,1680 (late III or early IV CE). (28) Cf. Quintilian, Inst. 8.4.9-14; D.F. WATSON, “A Rhetorical Analysis of 3 John: A Study in Epistolary Rhetoric”, CBQ 51 (1989) 487. (29) Cf. Rhet. Her. 1,5; 3,6,11-12; Aristotle, Rhet. 3,14,1414b-1415a; Cicero, Inv. 1,15-17. (30) Cf . Polycarp, Phil 1,1-2; P. Giess 21 (II CE); P. Mich. VIII, 474; VIII, 495; VIII, 473 (all from II CE). (31) BROWN, John, 791. Cf. also 2 Macc 1,11. (32) The omission or addition of letters to create assonance and redundancy (paronomasia) is discussed in Her. 4,21,29; Cicero, Or. Brut. 25,84 and De or. v 2,63,256. (33) Cf. Quintilian, Inst. 4,1,16. WATSON, “Rhetorical Analysis”, 487.