A Letter of Recommendation? 215 Gaius to give proof of his allegiance: Diotrephes, very likely a better- endowed Christian, whose house became a place where local believers would meet for worship purposes (cf. Rom 16,3-5.23; Col 4,15; Phlm 2; 1 Pet 4,9) (51). Was Gaius already aware of the ongoing conflict between the Elder and Diotrephes (52)? Our guess is that he was, but whatever the case might have been, it does not change the function and purpose of Diotrephes’ mention and description in the economy of the Elder ’s argumentation. Third John is ascribable to the epideictic fashion of rhetorically stimulating a positive response in the audience. Therefore, it is almost expected that his previous reference to a noble behavior performed by honorable people (“we have to receive them”, v. 8) in contrast to disgraceful hostility perpetuated by unworthy people (“They received nothing from the pagans”, v. 7) should be somehow expanded (53). The Elder introduces Diotrephes as an anti- example, much like he did with the “pagans” of v. 7. The fact that Gaius might have known Diotrephes personally makes the matter even more intriguing, since the Elder has already started, as we will shortly show, to undermine — especially by means of irony — his moral character. To start with, Diotrephes is introduced as oJ filoprwteuvwn aujtw'n (“the one having desire for preeminence among them”, v. 9). The word is a NT hapax, but its cognate noun filoprw'to" appears in classical Greek literature, often with a negative connotation (cf. Artemidorus Daldianus, Onir. 2,32; Plutarch, Alc. 2,2; Sol. 95b.). As Lieu remarks, similar forms (e.g., filovtimo") are found in inscriptions referring to benefactors. She therefore suggests that “it is possible that this is a parody or rejection of a ‘secular’ designation of honour” (54). (51) Cf. DESILVA, Patronage, 215. (52) A lot has been written about the motives behind Diotrephes’ hostility, but, truth be said, all hypotheses about the source of the conflict between the Elder and Diotrephes are plain speculations. As MITCHELL, “Social Context”, 299-320 has showed in a masterly and influential fashion, the only information we can draw from the text is that Diotrephes did not receive the Elder’s itinerants as guests. Third John 9 and 10 have the same verb ejpidevcomai, meaning the same thing: “to receive [as a guest]”. While it is safe to assume that Diotrephes did not receive the Elder’s envoys, nothing can be inferred about the reason behind such a refusal. (53) It was very common for rhetors to develop a series of dichotomies (e.g., virtue/vice, noble/disgraceful) as a means to drive home the point: Aristotle, Rhet. 1,9; 2,22,1396; Rhet. Alex. 3,35,1440b,14-1441b,29; Cicero, Inv. 2,59,177; De or. 2,84-85. WATSON, “Rhetorical Analysis”, 493-494. (54) LIEU, Epistles of John, 111.