Hansjörg Schmidt, «How to Read the First Epistle of John Non-Polemically» biblica, Vol. 85 (2004) 24-41 page 30

Vol 85 (2004)

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.

Page 30/41
‹
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
›

30 HansjÃ¶rg Schmid II. The â€˜Johannine Systemâ€™ as a Hermeneutical Basis 1. Intertextuality and the Relationship of the Johannine Writings For most readings of 1 John the relationship with the Gospel of John (John) is central. This is no wonder, as the two texts are very closely related with respect to content, vocabulary, and style. Their relationship is determined polemically by most authors considering 1 John as a counterattack against an unorthodox interpretation of John (27). The alternative (and less popular) position claims that 1 John is the older document and John constitutes an elaboration of the epistleâ€™s kerygma (28). Both positions have convincing arguments to support them. What they have in common is that they are based on a particular thesis about the order of the composition of John and 1 John and that each of the two texts is linked with events in the history of the Johannine community so that this history forms the bond between the two texts. When I propose an intertextual model at this point, it is not one of universal intertextuality (29), but one restricted to the Johannine writings as a privileged space for intertextual relations. Hence, intertextuality functions as a means to describe the relationship of John and 1 John. My thesis is that it is not only virtually impossible to trace the bridges between text and history (as will be argued in 2.2.), but also impossible to prove which of the two texts was written before the other. As an example, we may consider John 6,60-71 and 1 John 2,18- 27. The close relationship between these two texts has been seen by several authors (30). Whereas in John the departure of some of the disciples and Peterâ€™s confession is narrated step by step, in 1 John the narrative elements are reduced to a minimum. 1 John uses the narrative flashback on the schism (2,19) as a peg for reflections on the importance of the christological confession and remaining with the community (2,20-27). Both texts have their specific accents; for example, John 6,60-71, in giving the reader the choice to remain (like (27) BROWN, Epistles, 91 passim; KLAUCK, 1. Johannesbrief, 33; UEBELE, VerfÃ¼hrer, 118. (28) GRAYSTON, Epistles, 12-14. (29) Like J. KRISTEVA, Semeiotike. Recherches pour une sÃ©manalyse (Paris 1969). (30) SCHENKE, â€œSchismâ€. For a continuation of Schenkeâ€™s approach see SCHMID, Gegner, 114-125.