Hansjörg Schmidt, «How to Read the First Epistle of John Non-Polemically», Vol. 85 (2004) 24-41
When reading 1 John most contemporary interpretors stress its polemical character and use the opponents as a key for the whole text. In contrast to them, this article proposes a non-polemical reading which treats the opponents only as a minor feature of 1 John and denies the possibility of mirror-reading the epistle. The article shows the merits, but also the inconsistencies of already existing non-polemical readings of 1 John. It describes the relationship between 1 John and John as an intertextual reading-process and views the opponents as literary contrasting figures. They form a part of an apocalyptic scenario and are related to the main ethical theme of 1 John. The pragmatic function of the excursus-like opponent texts(1 John 2,18-27; 4,1-6) is to strengthen and reassure the reader by demonstrating that he or she is immune to the opponent’s denial of the christological confession. On this basis, the ethical parenesis takes place, the urgency of which is stressed by the apocalyptic motifs. As a result, the reader tries to avoid an ethical transgression by which he or she would become like the christological opponents, who thus function as a counter-concept to the community.
How to Read the First Epistle of John Non-Polemically 27
She challenges the approach that takes for self-evident 1 John’s
character as “a fundamentally polemical writing†(11), which, according
to Lieu, is an attribution of modern scholars and not of the text
itself (12). She proposes a reading “without immediate and prior
reference to the views of its opponentsâ€(13). Her approach is not
general, but sets a different emphasis: “its [1 John’s] purpose is not
first of all to engage in polemic with outsidersâ€(14). For Lieu the ethical
debate of 1 John is not primarily directed against opponents. Thus, the
chief method of Lieu’s reading is to separate clearly the ethical debate
from the christological debate linked with the opponents. What
remains unclear, however, is the exact link between the two debates, as
the suspicion arises that Lieu does not follow her strategy of separation
consistently (15). Moreover, Lieu challenges the polemical reading from
the text of 1 John itself, not from a hermeneutical and an epistemo-
logical reflection. So the questions of if and what reconstructions are
possible and what role they should play when interpreting 1 John are
not fully answered.
T. Griffith was the first scholar to use the term “non-polemical†by
proposing “a pastoral rather than a polemical outlookâ€(16) on 1 John.
He continues developing Lieu’s thesis about the limited range of
opponent texts in 1 John and proves the non-polemical character of the
slogans in 1,6.8.10; 2,4.6.9; 4,20 with the help of analogies from
secular Greek literature and philosophical debates. He aspires to
demonstrate that both the ethical and the christological debate “can be
explained without reference to what the group that has left the
Johannine community (2,19) positively believesâ€(17). Nevertheless, he
(11) LIEU, “Authorityâ€, 212. Hence she claims, “polemics are subordinate to
the author’s main interest in his readers and the assurance they have†(214-215).
(12) LIEU, “Authorityâ€, 216.
(13) LIEU, Theology, 16.
(14) LIEU, Theology, 22.
(15) LIEU, “Authorityâ€, 224, where she states with regard to the opponents:
“their departure may well have been related to these moral issuesâ€. See also LIEU,
Theology, 106, where she describes love and faith as “inseparableâ€, but does not
deepen this thesis. Thereby she underestimates the thematic hierarchy in 1 John
and the distribution of the two thematical accents on John and 1 John (see my
solution below in III.2 and III.3).
(16) T. GRIFFITH, “A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 Johnâ€, TynB 49 (1998) 253-
276 (255, also 275). Cf. also ID., Keep yourselves from idols. A new look at 1 John
(JSNTSS 233; Sheffield 2002) 108 and 119.
(17) GRIFFITH, “Readingâ€, 253. Cf. also ID., Keep yourselves from idols, 118-
124.
FOLLOW US