How to Read the First Epistle of John Non-Polemically 41 the text model proposed in this article contributes to the exegetical dis- cussion of intertextuality, systems theory and constructivism. Finally, I want to return to the aspect of polemics as a category, to which the non-polemical reading (as a method) can also make an im- portant contribution. We find polemics in many places, not only in 1 John. In the usual polemical reading the polemic would be empha- sized and thereby legitimated as a response of orthodoxy to the heretics. A non-polemical-reading, however, constitutes a self-critical reading of polemics that tries to find the reasons for the polemics in the commu- nity itself and thereby helps to overcome polarization (62). The ques- tion of the adequacy of polemics, however, is another issue (63). Akademie der Diözese Rottenburg-Stuttgart Hansjörg SCHMID Im Schellenkönig 61 70184 Stuttgart, Germany SUMMARY 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. —————— culture?” It is interesting to observe that, though treating all of Johannine literature in his book, he only asks this question for John. This is symptomatic for a merely historic reading of 1 John. (62) Self-reference, therefore, does not mean a steady blame of the subject — there may be adequate reasons for polemics and calling somebody an opponent, but it does indeed involve a change of perspectives. (63) See the author’s reflections on this issue: H. SCHMID, “Gegner werden gemacht. Neutestamentliche, religionsgeschichtliche und aktuelle Perspektiven”, ZKT 124 (2002) 385-396.