^{page 104 note 1} De Doct. Chr. 4.6.9Google Scholar; cf. 4.7.21. Quoted from Augustine, Saint, On Christian Doctrine (Liberal Arts Library; Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1980).Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 2} Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. In the analysis, all quotations of the NT are from the RSV and those from the rhetorical handbooks are from the LCL editions.

^{page 104 note 3} Malherbe, Abraham, ‘Ancient Epistolary Theorists’, Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 5 (1977) 4–12Google Scholar; Stowers, Stanley, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (LEC; Philadel phia: Westminster, 1986) 51–2.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 1} Bitter, Lloyd, ‘The Rhetorical Situation’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968) 6.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 2} For detailed discussion on the background of 2 John, see Brown, Raymond, The Epistles of John (AB 30; Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1982) 14–115Google Scholar, and Smalley, Stephen, 1, 2, 3 John (WBC 51; Waco, TX: Word, 1984) xxii–xxxiiGoogle Scholar and the works given in their respective bibliographies.

^{page 105 note 3} Bitzer, , ‘Rhetorical Situation’, 6.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 4} In v. 7 the present participle έρχόμενον in the description, ‘men who will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh’, could refer to either the incarnation or the parousia. The former is preferred because of the use of the perfect participle of ἔρχεσθαι to refer to the incarnation in the dispute with the secessionists in 1 John 4. 2, and the probability that the present participle derives from the Johannine formula which refers to Jesus as ‘the one who is to come’ (John 1. 15, 27; 3. 31; 6. 14; 11. 27; 12. 13. Bultmann, Rudolf, The Johannine Epistles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973) 112Google Scholar; Brown, , Epistles of John, 669–70Google Scholar; 685–86; Smalley, , 1, 2, 3 John, 328–30).Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 1} Bitzer, , ‘Rhetorical Situation’, 8.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 2} I am taking ‘elect lady’ (έκλεκτ ἥ κυρίἥ) in the adscriptio in a collective sense referring to a congregation. For a full discussion of the possible interpretations of this designation, see Bultmann, , Johannine Epistles, 107–8Google Scholar; Brown, , Epistles of John, 651–5Google Scholar; Smalley, , 1, 2, 3 John, 318–19.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 3} In v. 7 the verb έξέρχεσθαι (‘to go out’) indicates missionary activity in Johannine usage (John 8. 42; 13. 3; 17. 18; 20. 21; Smalley, , 1, 2, 3 John, 328Google Scholar). The coordination of the verbs ‘coming’ (ἕρχεσθαι) and ‘bringing’ (φέρειν) in v. 10 suggests that the secessionists come for the express purpose of disseminating their doctrine.

^{page 106 note 4} Bitzer, , ‘Rhetorical Situation’, 8.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 1} Brown, , Epistles of John, 650.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 2} Brown, , Epistles of John, 650–1.Google Scholar For a full discussion of authorship, see Brown, , Epistles of John, 14–35Google Scholar; 647–51, 679–80; Smalley, , 1, 2, 3 John, xxiiGoogle Scholar and the works given in their respective bibliographies.

^{page 107 note 3} Their works are Typoi Epistolikoi and Epistolimaioi Charactēres respectively. Translations are provided in Malherbe, , ‘Ancient Epistolary Theorists’, 29–39; 63–77.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 4} Stowers, , Letter Writing, 53–7.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 5} Ps. Lib. 4, 52; Stowers, , Letter Writing, 91–106Google Scholar, esp. 96. This type of letter is virtually equivalent to the advisory letter of Ps. Dem. 11; Stowers, , Letter Writing, 93, 107–12, esp. 107–8.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 2} John also shares some characteristics with other types of letters defined by Ps. Dem. and Ps. Lib.: the admonishing (Ps. Dem. 7; Stowers, , Letter Writing, 125–32Google Scholar; vv. 5–11), the censorious (Ps. Dem. 6; Stowers, , Letter Writing, 133–9Google Scholar; v. 7); the vituperative (Ps. Dem. 9; Stowers, , Letter Writing, 85–90Google Scholar; v. 7), the accusing (Ps. Dem. 17; Stowers, , Letter Writing, 166–7Google Scholar; v. 7), the requesting (Ps. Lib. 7, 54; White, John, Light from Ancient Letters (Foundations and Facets; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 194–6, 208Google Scholar; vv. 4–5), and the declaratory (Ps. Lib. 38, 85; vv. 7, 10–11).

^{page 108 note 1} Ps. Lib. 5 (Malherbe's translation). Cf. Ps. Dem. 11.

^{page 108 note 2} Stowers, , Letter Writing, 94–6.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 3} Stowers, , Letter Writing, 95, 96.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 4} Ps. Dem. 1. Ps. Lib. 11, 58 limits the friendly letter to simple friendship only. For more on the friendly letter, see Stowers, , Letter Writing, 58–70.Google Scholar

The friendly letter usually was sent between those who were personally acquainted (Ps. Lib. 11; Stowers, , Letter Writing, 59–60Google Scholar) and this cannot be determined for the Presbyter and his audience.

^{page 108 note 5} Mullins, Terence, ‘Petition as a Literary Form’, NouT 5 (1962) 47–8, 54.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 6} White, , Ancient Letters, 206.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 1} For a full discussion of deliberative rhetoric, see Ar. Rhet. 1.4–8; Rhet. ad Alex. 1–2, 29–34Google Scholar; Cic. De Or. 2.81.333–83.340; Inv. 2.51.155–58.176; Part. Or. 24–37Google Scholar; Her. 3.2–5; Quint. 3.8; Lausberg, Heinrich, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (2nd ed., 2 vols; Munich: Max Heuher, 1973) 1.123–29, #224–38Google Scholar; Martin, Josef, Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode (HbAItW 2.3; Munich: C. H. Beck, 1974) 167–76.Google Scholar

For full discussion of the three species of rhetoric (judicial, deliberative, and epideictic), see Lausberg, , 1.51–61, #53–65Google Scholar; 1.85–138, #139–254; Martin, , 15–210Google Scholar; Kennedy, George, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World: 300 B.C.-A.D. 300 (Princeton University Press, 1972) 7–23.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 2} Ar. Rhet. 1.3.1358b.3; Rhet. ad Alex. 1.1421b.17 ff.; Cic. Inv. 1.5.7; Part. Or. 24.83 ff.; Her. 1.2.2; Quint. 3.4.6, 9; 3.8.1–6; cf. 3.8.67–70.

^{page 109 note 3} Ar. Rhet. 1.3.1358b.4; 1.4.1359a.1–2; 2.18.1392a.5; Quint. 3.4.7; 3.8.6; cf. Cic. Part. Or. 3.10; 20.69.

^{page 109 note 4} Ar. Rhet. 1.3.1358b.5; Rhet. ad Alex. 1.1421b.21 ff.; 6.1.1427.39 ff.; Cic. Inv. 2.4.12; 2.51.155–58.176; Part. Or. 24; Top. 24.91; Her. 3.2.3–5.9; Quint. 3.8.1–6, 22–35. Cf. Cic. De Or. 2.82.333–6; Quint. 3.4.16.

^{page 109 note 5} Stowers, , Letter Writing, 93, 95, 107–8.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 6} A question is any subject on which two or more opinions can be offered. For further discussion, see Lausberg, 1.61–4, #66–78; Martin, , 15 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 7} Cic. Inv. 1.12.17; Quint. 3.10.1–2; cf. 7.2.8.

^{page 110 note 1} Quint. 3.8.4; 7.4.1–3; cf. 3.7.28. The stasis or basis of the case is the kind of question that arises from the first conflict of causes. Non-legal questions give rise to the three stases of fact, definition, and quality. For further discussion and references, see Lausberg, , 1.64–85, #79–138Google Scholar; Martin, , 28–52Google Scholar; Hermogenes, , ‘Hermogenes’ On Stases:Google Scholar A Translation with an Introduction and Notes', trans. and ed. Nadeau, Ray, Speech Monographs 31 (1964) 361–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 110 note 2} Ar. Rhet. 3.14.1415b.12; Cic. Part. Or. 4.13. The exordium is the initial component of arrangement in a rhetorical unit; an introduction whose functions will be discussed in due course. For full discussion and references, see Lausberg, , 1.150–63, #263–88Google Scholar; Martin, , 60–75.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 3} Ar. Rhet. 3.14.1415b.8; Cic. Part. Or. 27.97; Quint. 3.8.6, 10; cf. Part. Or. 4.13.

^{page 110 note 4} For full discussion of the causes underlying the exordium, see Cic. Inv. 1.15.20–16.21; Her. 1.3.5; Quint. 4.1.40–41.

^{page 111 note 1} The other exordium is the insinuatio or ephodos, a subtle and gradual attempt to ingratiate a hostile or disinterested audience to the case. For full discussion of both approaches, see Cic. Inv. 1.15–17; Her. 1.4–7; Quint. 4.1.42–51; cf. Rhet. ad Alex. 29.1437b. 33 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 2} Her. 1.6.9.

^{page 111 note 3} Cic. Inv. 1.15.21–16.23; Her. 1.4.6–5.8.

^{page 111 note 4} Ar. Rhet. 3.14.1415a.7; Rhet. ad Alex. 29.1436a.33 ff.; Cic. Inv. 1.15.20; Or. 14.122; Part. Or. 8.28; Top. 26.97; Her. 1.3.4; 1.4.6; Quint, . 4.1.5, 37,41, 50–51.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 5} For these and other methods of gaining attention, see Ar. Rhet. 3.14.1415a–1415b.7; Rhet. ad Alex. 29.1436b.5–15; Cic. Inv. 1.16.23; Part. Or. 8.29–30; Her. 1.4.7; Quint. 4.1. 33–34; 10.1.48.

^{page 111 note 6} Quint. 4.1.33.

^{page 111 note 7} I am giving the partitive genitive έκ τὢν τέκνων σου its full force which implies that a second group exists within the church that is not obeying the truth. I am also giving full force to the verb εὔρηκα which implies that the Presbyter has full knowledge of the community through study (Bultmann, , Johannine Epistles, 110Google Scholar; Smalley, , 1, 2, 3 John, 323Google Scholar). Contra Brown who in part argues that no negative elements should be found in this verse because it functions like a thanksgiving (Epistles of John, 660–1Google Scholar). If I am correct in identifying this verse as an exordium, negative elements are not unexpected.

^{page 111 note 8} Ar. Rhet. 3.14.1415a.7. Ethos is proof derived from the moral character of the rhetor and his or her speech. For further discussion and references, see Lausberg, , 1.141–42, #257Google Scholar; Martin, , 158–61Google Scholar; Kennedy, George, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963) 91–3.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 9} Cic. Inv. 1.16.23; Her. 1.4.7; Quint. 4.1.34.

^{page 112 note 1} Ar. Rhet. 3.14.1415a–1415b.7; Cic. Inv. 1.16.22; De Or. 2.79.321–22; part. Or. Her 1.4.8–5.8; Quint. 4.1.6–15.

^{page 112 note 2} Quint. 3.8.8 after Ar. Rhet. 3.14.1415a.7.

^{page 112 note 3} Ar. Rhet. 1.2.1356a.3–4; 2.1.1378a.5–7; Quint. 4.1.7; Aug. De Doct.Chr. 4.27; cf. Ar. Rhet. 3.14.1415a.7.

^{page 112 note 4} For these and other methods of obtaining goodwill, see Cic. Inv. 1.16.22; part. Or. 8.28; Her. 1.4.8–5.8; Quint, 4.1.7–10, 33; cf. Cic. De Or. 2.79.321.

^{page 112 note 5} Cic. Inv. 1.16.22; Her. 1.5.8.; Quint. 4.1.16.

^{page 112 note 6} White, , Ancient Letters, 200.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 1} Cic. De Or. 2.77.310–11; Part. Or. 8.27. Pathos is emotion. As a means of proof, it is the arousal of emotion for or against a person or issue. For full discussion and references, see Lausberg, , 1.140–41, #257Google Scholar; Martin, , 158–62.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 2} Funk, Robert, ‘The Form and Structure of II and III John’, JBL 86 (1967) 425–6Google Scholar; du Rand, J. A., ‘Structure and Message of 2 John’, Neot 13 (1979) 101, 118 n. 3Google Scholar; Brown, , Epistles of John, 661, 791, 792.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 3} Cic. De Or. 2.80.325; Quint. 4.1.23–27; cf. Cic. De Or. 2.79.320. Topoi are the places where arguments can be found, and are of two types: common, applicable to all species of rhetoric and classes of things, and specific, applicable to particular species of rhetoric and classes of things. For further discussion and references, see Lausberg, , 1.201–20, #373–99Google Scholar; Martin, , 107–19Google Scholar, 155–7, 162–5; Brunt, John C., ‘More on the Topos as a New Testament Form’, JBL 104 (1985) 495–500.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 1} The anarthrous use of έν άληθείᾳ can be either adverbial, meaning ‘truthfully’ (so Bultmann, , Johannine Epistles, 108Google Scholar) or theological, meaning ‘in the sphere of truth’. Based on its theological use in v. 4 and Johannine usage of ‘truth’, it is probably to be taken in the theological sense. For detailed discussion, see Brown, , Epistles of John, 655–6Google Scholar; Smalley, , 1, 2, 3 John, 319.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 2} Brown, , Epistles of John, 657.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 1} Quint. 8.6.29. Cf. Her. 4.31.42 for a similar definition. For full discusion of antonomasia, see Quint. 8.6.29–30; Lausberg, , 1.300–2, #580–1Google Scholar; Martin, , 263Google Scholar; Bullinger, E. W., Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1898; repr. Baker, 1968) 682–3.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 2} The use of metaphor to create vivid mental pictures is described in Cic. De Or. 3.40.160–1; Her. 4.34.45.

^{page 115 note 3} Her. 4.14.20–21; Quint. 9.3.41–42; Lausberg, , 1.333, #658–9Google Scholar; Martin, , 306.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 4} Cic. Part. Or. 15.54.

^{page 115 note 5} Her. 4.28.38. According to the examples given in the handbooks, the repetition is immediate and the word or words having the same grammatical use and case as is true here. For further discussion, see Quint. 9.3.28–29; Lausberg, , 1.314–15, #619–22Google Scholar; Martin, , 301–2.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 1} For full discussion of the narratio and for references, see Lausberg, , 1.163–90, #289–347Google Scholar; Martin, , 75–89.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 2} Quint. 4. 1.76–79 recommends that the transition from exordium to narratio be obvious.

^{page 116 note 3} Ar. Rhet. 3.16.1417b.11; Cic. Part. Or. 4.13.

^{page 116 note 4} Quint. 5.11.36. Cf. Cic. Inv. 1.30.48 for a similar definition.

^{page 116 note 5} For full discussion of κρίσεις, see Cic. Inv. 1.30.48; Quint. 5.11.36–44.

^{page 116 note 6} Quint. 4.2.125.

^{page 117 note 1} For discussion of the three types of narratio, see Cic. Inv. 1.19.27; Her. 1.8.12–13; Quint. 4.2.11.

^{page 117 note 2} Rhet. ad Alex. 30.1438a.20 ff.; Cic. Inv. 1.20.28–21.30; Or. 34.122; Her. 1.9.14–16; Quint. 4.2.31–60.

^{page 117 note 3} For these and other techniques for achieving brevity, see Rhet. ad Alex. 30.1438a.38 ff.; Cic. Inv. 1.20.28; De Or. 2.80.326–28; Part. Or. 6.19; 9.32; Her. 1.9.14; Quint. 4.2.40–51, 103–4.

^{page 117 note 4} Parenthesis is a figure of speech which ‘… consists in the interruption of the continuous flow of our language by the insertion of some remark’ (Quint. 9.3.23). For further discussion, see Quint. 9.3.23–26; Lausberg, , 1.427–28, #860Google Scholar; Martin, , 266, 299Google Scholar; Bullinger, , 470–1.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 5} Suggested by Brown, , Epistles of John, 684.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 1} For full discussion of the partitio, see Cic. Inv. 1.22–23; Her. 1.10.17; Quint. 3.9.1–5; 4.4–5; Martin, , 91–5.Google Scholar Another option is to place the propositions at the beginning of every proof – Quint. 4.4.1.

^{page 118 note 2} Cic. Inv. 1.23.33 and Quint. 4.5.8 state that no partitio is needed when only one prop osition is involved.

^{page 118 note 3} A technique discussed in Quint. 3.9.7; 4.2.54, 79, 86; 4.4.9.

^{page 118 note 4} White, John Lee, The Body of the Greek Letter (SBLDS 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972) 18–19, 39.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 5} White, , Body, 18, 39Google Scholar; White, , Ancient Letters, 207.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 6} White, , Body, 19–22, 40Google Scholar; White, , Ancient Letters, 204, 208–11.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 7} White, , Body, 22–3, 41Google Scholar; Funk, Robert, ‘Form and Structure’, 425–7.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 8} Mullins, T. Y., ‘Petition’, 46–7Google Scholar; Funk, , ‘Form and Structure’, 426–7Google Scholar; White, , Ancient Letters, 195, 204Google Scholar; du Rand, J. A., ‘;Structure’, 101Google Scholar (although he assumes the request includes v.6). The transition from the background of the request to the request itself is often made with the conjunction ήτί ον καί νν (White, , Ancient Letters, 211Google Scholar). Verse 5 begins with καί νν.

^{page 118 note 9} I have also found the body-opening to correspond to the exordium and the narratio in 3 John and Jude as well.

^{page 119 note 1} For full discussion of and references for the probatio, see Lausberg, , 1.190–236, #348–430Google Scholar; Martin, , 95–137.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 2} Ar. Rhet. 1.4–8; 2.22.1396a.8; Rhet. ad Alex. 1.1421b.21–1423a.11; 6.1427b.39–40; Cic. Inv. 2.52–58; Top. 23.89; Part. Or. 24–27; Her. 3.2.3–5.9; Quint. 3.8.10–28.

^{page 119 note 3} Ar. Rhet. 1.9.1368a.40; 3.17.1418a.5; Rhet. Ad Alex. 32.1438b.29 ff.; Quint. 3.8.34, 66; cf. 5.11.8.

^{page 119 note 4} Stowers, , Letter Writing, 95, 97.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 5} Quint. 3.8.12. Cf. Rhet. ad Alex. 7.1428a.16 ff.; 14. 1431b.10 ff. which consider the Opinion of the rhetor as a supplementary form of proof in deliberation. Such a proof is integral to ethos.

^{page 119 note 6} Cic. Or. 36.125–27; Part. Or. 15.52.

^{page 119 note 7} Long. Subl. 11:2.

^{page 119 note 8} Cic. Part. Or. 15.54.

^{page 119 note 9} See the discussion of the figures of addition in Quint. 9.3.28–57.

^{page 120 note 1} Cic. Part. Or. 16.55–17.58.

^{page 120 note 2} White, , Body, 39.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 3} White, , Body, 7–9.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 4} White, , Body, 13–15.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 5} Brown, , Epistles of John, 664–5.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 6} I disagree with du Rand that vv. 5–6 form the petition (‘Structure’, 101, 10). Rather, v. 5 is the petition and v. 6 is the first elaboration of its content in the probatio. This is independently corroborated by the fact that vv. 4–5 constitute the body-opening of the letter, and, as currently understood, the petition does not incorporate such an elaborate explanation as v. 6 provides (see Mullins, ‘Petition’ for corroborating examples).

^{page 120 note 7} For detailed treatment of these difficulties, see Brown, , Epistles of John, 664–8Google Scholar; Smalley, , 1, 2, 3 John, 325–7Google Scholar; von Wahlde, Urban C., ‘The Theological Foundation of the Presbyter's Argument in 2 Jn (2 Jn 4–6)’, ZNW 76 (1985) 209–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 121 note 1} Chiasm is a rhetorical device common to ancient literature, but is not discussed in the handbooks. For further discussion, see Lund, Nils, Chiasmus in the New Testament (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1942)Google Scholar, and Kennedy, , New Testament Interpretation, 28–9.Google Scholar

Αύτ has either έντολή or άγάπη as its referent. Whereas έντολή is the nearest antecedent, I am assuming that άγάπη is the referent because if έντολή were the antecedent, it would create a difficult tautology with itself.

^{page 121 note 2} Her. 4.25.35. Quint. 9.3.91 argues that Cornificius is incorrect in considering definitio a figure.

^{page 121 note 3} Her. 4.22.31; Quint. 9.3.66, 80. Long. Subl. 23–24 states that the change of case and number are very ornamental, having a sublime emotional effect and lending variety to the rhetoric. Quint. 9.3.20 describes using the singular for the plural and vice-versa as a figure of speech. These latter two figures, however, do not occur here because the change is decided beforehand and occurs throughout the passage, not made within it as is the case in v. 6.

Alternation in number is a Johannine stylistic device. For further instances, see the dis cussion of Brown, , Epistles of John, 250–1, 665.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 4} Her.4.42.54.

^{page 121 note 5} For further discussion of refining, see Her. 4.42.54–44.58; Lausberg, , 1.413–19, #830–42Google Scholar; Bullinger, , 399–400.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 6} Quint. 10.5.7.

^{page 121 note 7} Cic. Part. Or. 15.54.

^{page 122 note 1} Aphthonius 2–3 as translated by Butts, James and Hock, Ronald, in Hock, Ronald F. and O'Neil, Edward N., The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric: Volume I. The Progymnasmata (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 225.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 2} See Hock and O'Neil, Chreia and the numerous discussions found there.

^{page 122 note 3} An enthymeme is an incomplete syllogism, lacking either a premise or a conclusion. Ar. Rhet. 1.2.1357a.13–14; 2.22–26; 3.17.1418a.6–1418b.17; Rhet. ad Alex. 10; Quint. 5.10. 1–3; 5.14.1–4, 24–26; Lausberg, , 1.198–200, #371–72Google Scholar; Martin, , 101–7.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 4} Long. Subl. 25.

^{page 123 note 1} Her. 4.32.43. Cf. Cic. De Or. 3.42.167; Or. 27.93; Quint. 8.6.23 for similar definitions. For full discusion of metonymy, see Cic. De Or. 3.42.167–68; Quint. 8.6.23–28; Lausberg, , 1.292–95, #565–71Google Scholar; Martin, , 268–9.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 2} Cic. De Or. 3.42.168.

^{page 123 note 3} Cf. the antithesis of πλανω and άκολοθεν in reference to opponents with foreign doctrine in 2 Pet 2. 15.

^{page 123 note 4} Cic. Part. Or. 15.54.

^{page 123 note 5} I am adopting the reading άπολέσητε..είργασάμεθα.. άπολαβητε.. The other readings are best explained as a way to smooth the alternation of you, we, you which includes the reading adopted here. For further discussion, see Metzger, Bruce, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1971) 721.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 1} βλέπετε is often used in eschatological contexts (Eph 5. 15; Heb 10. 25), particularly pertaining to the appearance of deception and false teachers (Mark 13. 5, 9, 23, 33; Col 2. 8). Eternal life is indicated by Johannine christology, for as Brown states on the basis of John 6. 27, 29, ‘… in Johannine thought correct christological belief is a “work” that opens the recipient to receive eternal life’ (Epistles of John, 672Google Scholar). Eternal life is also indicated by the use of μισθός in the NT in connection with eschatological expectation (Matt, 5. 12Google Scholar; Mark, 9. 41Google Scholar; 1 Cor 3. 8, 14; Rev 11. 18; M. 12).

^{page 124 note 2} Her. 4.42.54.

^{page 124 note 3} Cic. Part. Or. 15.54.

^{page 124 note 4} Her. 4.32.44. Cf. Quint. 8.6.62 for a similar definition. For full discussion, see Her. 4.32.44; Quint. 8.6.62–67; Lausberg, , 1.357–9, #716–18Google Scholar; Martin, , 265–6Google Scholar, 308–9; Bullinger, , 692–8.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 5} Ar. Poet. 19.1456b.7–9; Cic. Or. 40.138.

^{page 124 note 6} I am taking το χριστο as a subjective rather than as an objective genitive. It refers to Christ's teachings rather than teachings about Christ. The reference in v. 7 to other doctrine about Christ favours the objective genitive here. However, Johannine usage of διδαχή with the subjective genitive (John 7. 16, 17; 18. 19; Rev 2. 14, 15) and Johannine doctrine that all teaching ultimately derives from Christ (John 16. 14–15) both strongly indicate that the subjective genitive is in play here (Brown, , Epistles of John, 674–5.Google ScholarContra Bultmann, , Johannine Epistles, 113Google Scholar; Smalley, , 1, 2, 3 John, 332Google Scholar).

^{page 125 note 1} Irony can be either a trope or a figure of thought, and here it is the latter. In both cases, something understood is opposite of what is actually said. As a figure, unlike a trope, it is apparent, but not confessed that such is the case. Rhet. ad Alex. 21; Quint. 9.2.44–46; Lausberg, , 1.302–3, #582–85Google Scholar; 446–50, #902–4; Martin, , 263–4Google Scholar; Reumann, John, ‘St. Paul's Use of Irony’, LQ 7 (1955) 140–5.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 2} These three figures and their interrelationships are discussed together in the handbooks: Ar. Rhet. 3.9.1409b.7–1410b.10; Rhet. ad Alex. 26.1435b.25–28.1436a.14; Demetr. Eloc. 1.22–29; Cic. Or. 49.163–50.167; Quint. 9.3.75–86. The same use of the Gorgianic figures is found in 3 John 11. For more on the Gorgianic figures, see Kennedy, George, Persuasion in Greece, 63–6Google Scholar; Grube, G. M. A, The Greek and Roman Critics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965) 16–21.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 3} For the ancient discussion of antithesis, see Ar. Rhet. 3.9.1409b.7–1410b.10; Rhet. ad Alex. 26; Demet. Eloc. 1.22–24; Cic. Or. 49.166–50.167; Her. 4.15.21; 4.45.58; 3.81–86; Lausberg, , 1.389–98, #787–807Google Scholar; Martin, , 293–5Google Scholar, 312–14; Bullinger, , 715–18.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 1} Parisosis or πάρισον is a figure of speech which ‘… occurs when a sentence has two equal members. Equality may exist between many small things and a few large things, and between an equal number of things of equal size.’ Rhet. ad Alex. 27.1435b.38 M. For full discussion, see Ar. Rhet. 3.9.1410a.9–1410b.10; Rhet. ad Alex. 27; Quint. 9.3.75–76; Lausberg, , 1.359–61, #719–24Google Scholar; Martin, , 310–11.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 2} That is, epiphora, homoeteleuton, and homoeoptoton (where the case ending is identical in appearance).

^{page 126 note 3} Epiphora or conversio is a figure of speech which repeats the last word in successive phrases (Her. 4.13.19). Cf. Cic. Or. 39.135; De Or. 3.54.206; Quint. 9.3.30 for similar definitions, but without the figure being identified. For further discussion, see Lausberg, , 1.320–1, #631–2Google Scholar; Martin, , 304Google Scholar; Bullinger, , 241–3.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 4} Her. 4.28.38. For further discussion of reduplication, we Her. 4.28.38; Quint. 9.3.28–29; Lausberg, , 1.314–15, #619–22Google Scholar; Martin, , 301–2.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 5} Quint. 9.3.35–37. For further discussion of regressio, see Lausberg, , 1.393–5, #798–9.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 6} Her. 4.28.38. For further discussion of synonymy, see Quint. 9.3.45; Lausberg, , 1.329–32, #64–56Google Scholar; Martin, , 306–7Google Scholar; Bullinger, , 324–38.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 7} Cic. Part. Or. 15.54;

^{page 127 note 1} Cic. Part. Or. 15.54; Quint. 8.4.3–9.

^{page 127 note 2} Brown, , Epistles of John, 676Google Scholar; Smalley, , 1, 2, 3 John, 333.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 3} Quint. 8.3.83. For full discussion of emphasis, see Cic. Or. 40.139; Her. 4.53.67–54.67; Quint. 8.3.83–86; 9.2.64; Lausberg, , 1.298–99, #578Google Scholar; 450–3, #905–6; Martin, , 2545Google Scholar; Bullinger, , 165–6.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 4} The other type is emphasis meaning something which it does not actually say. Quint. 8.3.83.

^{page 127 note 5} Her. 4.54.67.

^{page 127 note 6} Quint. 8.4.26; 9.2.3.

^{page 127 note 7} Cic. Part. Or. 15.54.

^{page 128 note 1} For discussion and references regarding the peroratio, see Lausberg, , 1.236–40, #431–2Google Scholar; Martin, , 147–66.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 2} Cf. Brown, , Epistles of John, 15, 679, 685Google Scholar; 694; 791; Smalley, , 1, 2, 3 John, 314.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 3} Ar. Rhet. 3.12.1414b.3; Cic. Part. Or. 17.59. The former reference states that recapitulation is only needed in deliberative when there is a conflict of opinion.

^{page 128 note 4} Cic. Inv. 1.55.109.

^{page 128 note 5} Ellipsis is a figure of speech in which ‘… the word omitted may be clearly gathered from the context …’ (Quint. 9.3.58; cf. 8.6.21–22 for a similar definition). For further discussion, see Lausberg, , 1.346–7, #690–1Google Scholar; Martin, , 300Google Scholar; Bullinger, , 1–130.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 6} Periphrasis is a trope which occurs when ‘… we use a number of words to describe something for which one, or at any rate only a few words of description would suffice …’(Quint. 8.6.59; cf. 9.1.6 and Her. 4.32.43 for similar definitions). For full discussion, see Long. Subl. 28–29; Her. 4.32.43; Quint. 8.6.59–61; 9.1.6; Lausberg, , 1.305–7, #589–98Google Scholar; Martin, , 269Google Scholar; Bullinger, , 419–22.Google Scholar If periphrasis does not enhance style, as is the case here, it can be classified as perissology(Quint. 8.6.61).

^{page 128 note 7} The exordium and peroratio share the task of eliciting pathos from the audience. See Cic. De Or. 2.77.311; Part. Or. 1.4; Quint. 4.1.28; 6.1.9–10, 12, 51–52.

^{page 129 note 1} White, , Body, 5, 27, 40, 41.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 2} White, , Body, 25.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 3} White, , Body, 29–31, 41Google Scholar; White, , Ancient Letters, 202, 205.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 4} White, , Body, 25, 39–110.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 5} White, , Ancient Letters, 205–6.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 6} See Brown, , Epistles of John, 693–5.Google Scholar

^{page 129 note 7} White, , Ancient Letters, 202.Google Scholar