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.
32 Hansjörg Schmid
Jesus and can function as a missionary tract (33), 1 John requires the
reader ’s knowledge about the christological kerygma and develops
ethical instruction on this basis (this thesis is further elaborated in
III.2.). Constituting one of the two basic texts of this system, 1 John is
of equal value and complementary to the Gospel of John and not just
a ‘situative’ intervention into a conflict of the Johannine community.
Many of the differences between the two texts can be explained by
their Textsortendifferenz (34) and there is no need to quote two different
situations underlying them. Whether the Gospel or 1 John was written
first is not relevant from the implicit reader’s perspective as both
reading directions are fruitful.
The intertextual readings of the two texts lead to what I call the
“Johannine systemâ€(35). It is not the sum of the two texts but the result
of a permanent intertextual reading-circle. As the reader’s intertextual
construction, it can be described with the help of systems theory.
2. Systems Theory, Delimitation and Self-Construction
According to Niklas Luhmann, a system is an ordered relation of
elements. This notion originally developed for social systems has been
transferred to texts in literary theory and provides a good basis for a
non-polemical reading of 1 John (36). A system is principally an entity in
itself, the perception of which cannot be based on realism, but on
constructivism (37). A system produces reality so that the pragmatic
(33) This position, once described as “universally rejected†(T. OKURE, The
Johannine Approach to Mission [WUNT 31; Tübingen 1988] 10), has become
more popular recently: S. MOTYER, Your Father the Devil? A New Approach to
John and “the Jews†(Carlisle 1997) 6, 57-73, 215-216; D.A. CARSON, The Gospel
according to John (Leicester 1991) 89-92. An allusion to the missionary character
of the community can be seen in the motif of “hearing us†in 1 John 4,6.
(34) THYEN, “Johannesbriefeâ€, 191.
(35) 2 John and 3 John also belong to the Johannine system. Nevertheless, as
real letters (limited addressees in 2 John 1; 3 John 1; greetings in 2 John 13;
3 John 15) and short texts they are not its basic texts. Considering the Johannine
writings as a whole, one can therefore speak of a triple Textsortendifferenz.
(36) H. DE BERG, “Kunst kommt von Kunst. Die Luhmann-Rezeption in der
Literatur- und Kunstwissenschaftâ€, Rezeption und Reflexion. Zur Resonanz der
Systemtheorie Niklas Luhmanns außerhalb der Soziologie (eds. H. DE BERG – S.J.
SCHMIDT) (Frankfurt 2000) 175-221; J. FOHRMANN – H. MÜLLER (eds.),
Systemtheorie der Literatur (München 1996).
(37) E. VON GLASERSFELD, “Knowing without Metaphysics: Aspects of the
Radical Constructivist Positionâ€, Research and Reflexivity (ed. F. STEIER)
(Inquiries in Social Construction; London 1991) 12-29.
FOLLOW US