Irish1975 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 2:42 pm What is the evidence that you see in 1 John for the author presenting himself as (a) the beloved disciple, or (b) any kind of historical witness?
I defer to Georg Strecker's commentary (Strecker, Georg.
The Johannine Letters. A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. -- pages 5 to 10)
That "the word" that is witnessed is "the person of Jesus Christ":
It also becomes evident at this point that the relative ὃ that appears four times in v. 1, despite its neuter form and despite the fact that it is paraphrased with the περὶ expression in v. lb,11 in truth refers to nothing other than the Christ-event to which the author testifies. Although the concept of λόγος should be translated in the first instance as “word,” so that the genitive can be understood as objective (“word of life")12, one still cannot exclude an epexegetical13 or qualitative14 sense. This indicates that the genitive ζωής does not necessarily reduce λόγος to an impersonal meaning (“word")15, but rather that the Logos can also be considered here as a person; for life-giving power belongs not only to the proclaiming word but also to Christ as the preexistent and incarnate Logos.16 That the interpretation of λόγος as a person cannot be eliminated is suggested by the parallels to the Johannine prologue, even though this does not establish any literary dependence. Instead, what we find here is a piece of tradition from the Johannine school.17 This conclusion is further suggested by the absolute usage τον ἀπ’ αρχής in 1 John 2:13-14. Accordingly, the author’s message concerns not only the life and work but also the person of Jesus Christ. If to speak of the person of Jesus Christ means at the same time to speak of the work and mission, the “cause” of Jesus Christ,18 it is equally true that the “cause” of Jesus Christ cannot be separated from his person. In the message of 1 John both the person and the “cause” of Jesus Christ are united in one.
Strecker, 10f
That the author presents himself as a first-generation eyewitness of Jesus:
If it is characteristic of the event involving the preexistent and incarnate Logos that it has occurred “from the beginning,” one can say of the same event that it is the object of hearing, seeing, beholding, and touching. That the author uses the first person plural and combines it with aorist and perfect verbs makes clear that the reference is to an event in past time and to a perception of that event that also lies in the past. He thus distinguishes himself from the Christian community in the present that is the addressee of 1 John. The author thus counts himself among the first Christian generation. The time difference excludes the possibility that at this point he is speaking with a simple ecclesial “we." It is true that in what follows the author and the community are often combined in a “we,"19 but in the introduction (vv. 1 -4) not only is such an equation contradicted by the chronological distinction just mentioned; “we are writing” (γράφομεν ἡμεῖς, v. 4a) also sets a clear division between the author and the addressees.20 Hence in this context “we” functions primarily as an authorial plural. It would be wrong to object, against this conclusion, that the author of 1 John ordinarily speaks of himself “in the singular,”21 for the shift between “we” and “I” styles is also found in 2 and 3 John, and is thus to be regarded as a general expression of a claim to authority, something that is indicated as well, and by no means least, by the “witness” terminology.22
If this is an authorial “we,” the proposal that the author is integrating himself by means of the first person plural in a “prophetic collective"23 is less likely, even though this would correspond to the structure of the Johannine circle, in which itinerant preachers had an important function. One could more correctly judge that the author uses “we” in order to assert membership in the “circle .. . of ‘apostolic’ witnesses.”24 In any case, the emphatic backward reference to the past time of salvation and the stress on the eye- and ear-witness have a “historically” accentuating function. The past tenses of ακηκόαμ€ν (“we have heard”), €ωράκαμ€ν (“we have seen”), and so on were not chosen by accident. They make it clear that the saving event in the past is the object of the hearing and seeing. They testify to the reality of the Logos’s becoming flesh, and not merely to the resurrection body of Christ (cf. John 20:24-29).
Footnote 24: Thus Schnackenburg, Epistles, 55. But it is characteristic of the author's self-understanding as a member of the second or third Christian generation that he does not use the concept of ἀπόστολος here or in what follows. This should be noted, even if the author's fictive claim is factually identical with that of an apostle of the first generation . . .
11-12
Is he a witness from the apostolic generation? If so, why not clearly say so?
Is the author of 1 John who refers to this past stage of the incamational event a contemporary of the life of Jesus? Is he a witness of the saving event, since he presents himself as a member of the apostolic generation? The emphatic backward reference to redemptive history seems to suggest this conclusion, and conservative scholars have, in fact, drawn it. Even if one does not conclude from this evidence that this author is identical with the author of the Fourth Gospel and that, in consequence, 1 John is also an eyewitness account (although the differences between the Fourth Gospel and 1 John speak too clearly against such a conclusion), the historical orientation should nevertheless be taken seriously.26 It is not really possible to understand the terminology used in vv. 1--4 as nothing more than a transferred, spiritualistic manner of speaking.27 Yet one must draw back from reading it as a historical statement. If John the presbyter, the author of 2 and 3 John and Papias’s “teacher,” is not to be counted among the historical witnesses of the life of Jesus, still less so is the author of 1 John. The tradition of the Johannine school, which this author presumes and independently edits, is already far removed from its origins.28
But, if the author’s status as an eye- and ear-witness is thus to be regarded as improbable, why does that author appear, in terms of both the form and matter of his presentation, as a “historical” witness of the Christ-event? He appears to be activated by two motives. First, there is a theological reason: defense against the false teachers who, as will appear in 1 John 2:22-23; 4:2-3, 15, represent a docetic christology. In opposition to an ahistorical, spiritualistic christology, it is important to assert the “empirical” reality of the Christ event. This is a first and decisive reason to begin 1 John with a testimony that the Christ lived on earth as visible, audible, and tangible. The second motive could be called “pseudepigraphical,” although this author does not use a pseudonym. Even though he does not use a false name, he is still writing this document under fictitious circumstances. He pretends to be an eye- and ear-witness, even though that does not correspond to historical reality. That he cannot be identical with the apostle John, although this was certainly asserted in patristic tradition,29 should not require a separate proof. The time frame would make it difficult to attribute 1 John to a contemporary of Jesus. Moreover, the patristic tradition testifies to the early death of the apostle John, the disciple of the Lord,30 and John 21 presupposes such a tradition. The reason for this indirectly expressed pseudepigraphical intention undoubtedly lies also in the recognition that such a fiction is appropriate to underscore the claims of this document and hence the author’s intention to put the docetic teaching of the opponents in its place. The claim to apostolic authority could be understood as an element of so-called early Catholicism, as shown by the other pseudepigraphical letters in the NT (e.g., the Pastorals, James, Jude, 1 and 2 Peter). It also remains for us to inquire whether other features of “early Catholicism” occur in 1 John.31
The sense in which the fictive author is part of the community of his addressees:
The addressees, who in any case are to be sought primarily in the communities belonging to the Johannine circle, were probably already acquainted with the set of theological problems at issue here. The defense against opponents who threaten their existence allows a distinction between what the text says and what it means. According to the external, fictive statement, a historical distance is fixed between the author as a supposed eyewitness and the addressees, who must defend themselves against the Docetists. The author’s “hearing,” “seeing,” and “touching” are thus undoubtedly impossible for them to experience, as the author says: it is part of the apostolic fiction. Nevertheless, the meaning of this historical distinction is of immediate importance to the community. Their common confrontation with docetic teaching implies κοινωνία between the addressees and the proclaimer (v. 3), a “community” with the Father and the Son, something that can be asserted not only of the author (v. 3b) but also of the readers (v. 6). This “community” is universal: it is true of the first generation but also of the later Christian communities; it is founded in their faith experience, which “sees” and “believes” the revelation of the love of God (1 John 4:16). This faith experience of the community has a christological foundation, since it does not permit the Logos-Christ to evaporate into a mere idea. Instead, it confesses and experiences the Christ-event as a paradoxical unification of the eschaton with the world, and the paradoxical realization of the resulting eschatological agape in human history.