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 29
community behind and restricts himself to a purely literary level. His
theoretical presumptions (mainly speech act theory) cannot be
discussed here (24). From a non-polemical view his explanation of the
antithetical statements and the depicted schism as warnings to the
reader is convincing (25). But it is interesting to see, that contrary to
Lieu and Griffith, Neufeld still adheres to the traditional range of
verses seen as reflections of the opponents, thus considering 1,6.8.10;
2,4.6.9; 4,20 as slogans of hypothetical opponents. The traditional link
of christological and ethical deficiency on the opponent’s side remains,
so that the polemical character and the over-emphasis on the
opponents is shifted from a historical level to a hypothetical level. The
relationship of faith and love, of self-definition and foe-devaluation
can therefore not be described sufficiently in Neufeld’s reading. What
makes these deficiencies still more evident, is that Neufeld does not
take into account the intertextual links with the Gospel of John, which
also need a non-polemical explanation.
Looking back, how far are these authors able to solve the problems
concomitant with the polemical readings? In what respect do the
problems remain unsolved? To sum up, either (in Neufeld’s case) the
question of the range of opponent texts is not satisfyingly solved, or (in
Lieu’s and Griffith’s case) the hermeneutical and epistemological
reflection is missing or only weakly developed. The approaches are
sometimes too vague and inconsistent, sometimes (like Neufeld)
radical, yet, at the same time, he still transports presumptions of the
polemical approach.
Therefore, I would like to propose a non-polemical reading that is
more consistent (26). Some of the mentioned inconsistencies can be
overcome with a text model based on Niklas Luhmann’s systems
theory and intertextuality, which are the two pillars of my reading. I
shall proceed in two steps: first, I will explain the hermeneutical and
theoretical implications of the reading. Then, I will outline my reading
of 1 John.
(24) My main point of criticism is that Neufeld bases his analysis merely on
speech act theory and thus on the author and not on the reader. Consequently, he
puts too little emphasis on the openness of 1 John and always mentions its
compelling character. The only permissible reader’s reaction is “acceptanceâ€
(NEUFELD, Speech Acts, 80). A reader response analysis can amend Neufeld’s
unilateral approach.
(25) NEUFELD, Speech Acts, 95, 134 passim.
(26) H. SCHMID, Gegner im 1. Johannesbrief? Zu Konstruktion und Selbst-
referenz im johanneischen Sinnsystem (BWANT 159; Stuttgart 2002).
FOLLOW US