Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by neilgodfrey »

davidmartin wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 10:23 pm 1 John doesn't present himself as an eyewitness in any meaningful way "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched"
I read this as a collective 'we' recalling something historical of the group, but with a hope it might lend a more direct interpretation in the readers mind
This kind of rhetoric essentially confirms the author has not seen Jesus or is an eyewitness. Far more likely this John is the presbyter, is the beloved disciple presented in the same kind of way? not so sure.
Yet that very vagueness of identification is what draws the reader in. It's a rhetorical bait to lead the reader to work out that this writer "really is" an eyewitness. See the technique discussed by Arthur J. Droge in Did Luke Write Anonymously? .

Sarah Iles Johnston explains how it is indirect and patchy and often inconsistent details dropped in different places and times that likewise invite audiences to enter the mythic world vicariously and put the pieces together for themselves -- The direct approach, "This is Peter the Apostle" for example, too easily invites suspicion if there is no strong pedigree with the text to guarantee it. But the indirect hints are much more effective when it comes to introducing a text that has not had a history of familiarity.

The author does not give his name but we are meant to infer it is John the apostle just as we are meant to infer the "we" passages in Acts and the prologues all point to Luke, companion of Paul.


Johnston, Sarah Iles. 2015. “Narrating Myths: Story and Belief in Ancient Greece.” Arethusa 48 (2): 173–218. https://doi.org/10.1353/are.2015.0011.

Johnston, Sarah Iles. 2015. “The Greek Mythic Story World.” Arethusa 48 (3): 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1353/are.2015.0008.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by Irish1975 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 4:24 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Wed Dec 23, 2020 4:54 pm He seems to think that the author of 1 John is presenting himself as an eyewitness to Jesus in essentially the same manner as the GJohn puts forward the beloved disciple, and I don’t see any basis for that.

Are there any good arguments for Gospel priority?
At the risk of testing your patience and asking you to repeat yourself, can I ask why you see "no basis for that"?
I’m not sure what to explain. I just don’t see evidence in the text of 1 John for those specific claims. 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?
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 11:30 pm The author does not give his name but we are meant to infer it is John the apostle just as we are meant to infer the "we" passages in Acts and the prologues all point to Luke, companion of Paul.
I agree that the NT is framed to invite various inferences about authorship. But with the texts ascribed to John, isn’t this simply because of the titles appended by the final redactor? I agree with Trobisch on this.

Obviously there is kinship between the Gospels and the epistles, but I think too little attention is paid to how radical the christological controversy is in 1 John. In particular, I don’t think that any churches that accepted GJohn would be suffering schisms over whether Jesus was the Christ or whether he had come in the flesh. I can only make sense of the Gospel as a response to that crisis, not as giving rise to it.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by neilgodfrey »

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.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by Irish1975 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Dec 26, 2020 6:37 pm
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.
“In truth.”

This exegesis begs all the relevant questions. Since Strecker has evidently made up his mind to read 1 John in conformity with GJohn, he’s not reading the text very closely at all, nor asking any probing questions about the prologue. For example, if Jesus was a recent historical man known from direct sensory experience, why is Jesus not the grammatical object of all this seeing, hearing, and touching? In brief, why the bizarre, cryptic introduction? Why, when Jesus is introduced, is he not specifically identified as the one seen, heard, touched, and known “from the beginning”?

Strecker is not interested in such questions at all and it’s hard to take any of this seriously.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by davidmartin »

well Irish 1 John appears to be conversing using language current within the community... like his emphasis on light and darkness as well. He is obliged to use this kind of language set, and i think can be fairly sure his opponents also used it as well. This is why he uses it, if he doesn't he isn't part of the community. But this raises almost as many questions. Is this a recent trend in the community, or does it predate him? He is trying to integrate his beliefs using the familiar language of the community, so presumably are his opponents if this thing is evolving as it appears to be. Things are getting heated, they are calling each other names, the claws are coming out, this marriage is on the rocks, but who will get Jesus?
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by Irish1975 »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Dec 29, 2020 4:16 am well Irish 1 John appears to be conversing using language current within the community... like his emphasis on light and darkness as well. He is obliged to use this kind of language set, and i think can be fairly sure his opponents also used it as well. This is why he uses it, if he doesn't he isn't part of the community. But this raises almost as many questions. Is this a recent trend in the community, or does it predate him? He is trying to integrate his beliefs using the familiar language of the community, so presumably are his opponents if this thing is evolving as it appears to be. Things are getting heated, they are calling each other names, the claws are coming out, this marriage is on the rocks, but who will get Jesus?
I’ve been trying to emphasize the point that accepting or denying Jesus as the Christ (1 John 2:22) must have been the basis for the schism in the first place. The docetism hypothesis makes no sense of that. The separationist hypothesis (Cerintheus) makes no sense of that. So we have to be willing to look at the schism in 1 John as something other than a dispute between two groups who both worshipped (or remembered, or honored) Jesus. So I think “who will get Jesus” is not the right question.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by davidmartin »

I don't really see it like that Irish to be honest. It might be true that accepting or denying Jesus as the Christ was the pivotal point in question, but ultimately it comes down to a difference in what they thought God was like. 1 John complains his opponents deny having sinned (then contradicts himself by claiming followers of Jesus do not sin). He had a fixated conception of what God was like, while other people thought God was different from that - and 1 John is forced to acknowledge that God is love, but with conditions attached. I think it's a battle over God's nature primarily but with the heavy duty theology going around that is so easily lost on us as it was on them. The actual disputes are just a side show. The exact same thing goes on today just as much. Sorry if this is abstracting the problem away and losing track of the historical element!
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by rgprice »

Jumping in late here. My impression of 1 John is that this is most likely written by a Gentile God-fearer, not a Jew. The whole thing just doesn't sound very Jewish.

"1 John 3:
1 See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed."

Not Jewish at all. The writing also doesn't really present "the Christ" as meaning what Jews would take it to mean.

The point being that this seems quite removed from any relation to some potential historical Jesus. Its certainly written after the dissemination of the Gospels IMO.

I see this as compatible with the view that 1 John is written in relation to the Gospel of John, and here the "original teachings" being referenced in the writing are based on the view that the Gospel of John reflects "original teachings". The focus on love also aligns with GJohn. But the author says that the teaching about love is new. This seems to indicate that 1 John is following on the heals of the dissemination of GJohn, which we could say introduces a new focus on love.

So yeah, it seems to me that 1 John is trying to address issues that have arisen in the wake of the publication of GJohn, within a community that may have previously held a purely spiritual conception of Jesus. I see this as a Gentile letter written to Gentiles. We're already getting far removed from the likely original Jewish movement.

I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by Irish1975 »

rgprice wrote: Wed Dec 30, 2020 8:30 am
it seems to me that 1 John is trying to address issues that have arisen in the wake of the publication of GJohn, within a community that may have previously held a purely spiritual conception of Jesus.

I'll admit I haven't read the whole thread.
My focus is on

1 John 2 :22
Who is the liar except the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?

about which I wrote in the OP
Any sensible reading of 1 John must explain why a community that was, on the historicist view, founded on (or at least in accordance with) a belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah, would have suffered a major schism over this very belief. It is not merely the supposedly anti-docetic statement in 4:2 that the author brings to the fore, but simply the idea that Jesus was the Christ. The two statements seem to have the same weight, the same basic meaning for him. A faction of docetists can hardly explain the traumatic rupture of the community over the most basic proposition of Christianity itself, that Jesus is the Christ.
Your view seems like it might be compatible with my hypothesis that a historical Jesus story had recently been introduced to these people, causing a schism, implying, as you say, that they previously had a “purely spiritual conception of Jesus.” The name “Jesus” takes on historicist implications for the author of 1 John that were not welcome for the original Jesus worshippers, who probably were attached to a celestial deity or mystery god of the sort preached originally by Paul and possibly also the original “church of God.”

But I don’t think this requires that GJohn was written before 1 John, and in fact I think GJohn makes better sense as an emphatic response to the crisis reflected in 1 John, as I argued here. Ben Smith also gave his own reasons for thinking that the epistle is older.

They’re really two separate issues. But I don’t think we can get a clear understanding of 1 John until we disentangle it from GJohn and read it on its own terms.
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Jesus Mythicism & 1 John

Post by rgprice »

You may be right that GJohn came after. I'm not sure, but either way it would seem that GJohn and 1 John are related. Either GJohn derived some of its views from 1 John or 1 John type teachings, or vice versa.
Post Reply