A Letter of Recommendation? 223 (definitional stasis). Instead, the Elder’s intent is to focus Gaius’ attention on the following question: was what Diotrephes did just and expedient (82)? The Elder leads Gaius to consider Diotrephes as someone who was supposed to do something honorable and good (namely, be hospitable to and supportive of the Elder’s emissaries), but shamefully failed to do so. As Aristotle put it: “…we feel shame at such bad things as we think are disgraceful to ourselves or to those we care for. These evils are, in the first place, those due to moral badness... [such as] giving less help than you might, or none at all…” (Rhet. 2,6) (83). Andrews University Luca MARULLI 4798-2 East Hillcrest Drive Berrien Springs, MI 49103 USA SUMMARY Previous studies argue that the Elder composed the letter to recommend Demetrius to Gaius, and that Third John therefore falls into the “letter of recommendation” genre. After assessing the differences between common letters of recommendation and Third John, this study examines the rhetoric of Third John in an attempt to show that it is not a letter of recommendation, but rather an epideictic rhetorical attempt to restore the Elder’s honor (discredited by Diotrephes) in Gaius’ eyes and persuade him to detach himself from Diotrephes’ reprehensible behavior by extending hospitality to the Elder’s envoys. (82) Cf. Quintilian, Inst. 7,1,7-8; Cicero, Part. or. 12,42a. (83) Cf. also 1 John 3,17: “But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (NASB).