Devils and Deviants

Religious Schism in 1 and 2 John

Merritt

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781532605628
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Devils and Deviants takes up the question of the impact of religious schism on the composition of 1 and 2 John. After decades attempting to reconstruct the beliefs of the schismatics referenced briefly in 1 John, Johannine scholars have largely rejected the notion that such a reconstruction can in fact be accomplished. In addition, there has been a notable move by some to interpret 1 and 2 John non-polemically, arguing that the schism has little or no bearing on the composition of these epistles and our ability to interpret them. In this volume, Merritt turns to the anthropology and sociology of religious schism to reconstruct the processes by which groups separate themselves from one another. He then applies that model as a heuristic device in reading 1 and 2 John, arguing in the process that, while the beliefs of the schismatics cannot be reconstructed with any accuracy, the schism has indeed had a profound impact on the Johannine community and 1 and 2 John.

IV

Applying the Model

Rhetorical Analysis

If the anthropology of religious schism is the exegetical vantage point from which I shall view the Johannine Epistles, then rhetorical analysis is the methodological approach by which I shall seek to bridge the gap between text and exegetical perspective. This choice is, in one sense, necessitated by the literary form of the text under consideration since the Epistles can be generally described as persuasive speech rather than, for example, narrative. While rhetorical criticism of the Johannine Epistles is in its nascent stages, some helpful research has been conducted by Duane F. Watson, and the methodological approach of Ben Witherington III’s recent commentary on the Pastoral and Johannine Epistles is socio-rhetorical.

Both Watson and Witherington have classified 1 John as epideictic rhetoric, 2 John as deliberative, and 3 John as either deliberative or epideictic.227 This classification serves as a helpful starting point for my interpretation. Three major categories for classifying rhetoric were first developed by Aristotle: deliberative, judicial, and epideictic. Each category has a specific setting envisioned: deliberative for use in political debate in a council or assembly, judicial before a judge or jury, and epideictic on occasions of public memorial.228 Two subdivisions can then be formulated for each of the three major divisions: deliberative can be exhortation or dissuasion, judicial can be accusation or defense, and epideictic can be either praise or blame. Kennedy notes that Aristotle’s tripartite division of rhetorical categories was not universally accepted, but it did have very wide acceptance and was certainly the dominant categorical breakdown.229 Aristotle notes that there are some points of overlap in his categories when he observes that changing the form of expression can shift the category from deliberative to epideictic and vice versa.230

Watson’s primary concern is not to argue for the classification of 1 John as epideictic rhetoric but to examine the role of amplification within 1 John. Nevertheless, since amplification is a characteristic of epideictic rhetoric, he briefly presents a defense of his classification.231 Watson adopts Smalley’s understanding of the purpose of 1 John: “The purpose of 1 John may therefore be summarized as primarily an appeal to the faithful: to strengthen the faith and resolve of true believers in the Johannine community by encouraging them to maintain the apostolic gospel.”232 This understanding Watson compares to Perelman, who says of epideictic rhetoric: “The purpose of an epidictic (sic) speech is to increase the intensity of adherence to values held in common by the audience and the speaker.”233 Besides an appeal to adherence to shared values, Watson also cites a present time referent, ascription of praise or blame, and “stasis of quality” as further indications that 1 John is an example of epideictic rhetoric.234 Witherington notes a common setting for epideictic rhetoric, and draws some conclusions from this for understanding the purpose of 1 John:

Epideictic rhetoric is the rhetoric of, for example, funeral homilies, and in a sense our author is dealing with a post mortem situation. There has been a split in the Christian community, and some its (sic) members have been lost through their departure. Healing is needed, reassurance must be offered, and reasons to continue to embrace the fundamental values must be given because eternal life for the members of the community hangs in the balance. 235

He then proceeds to refer to the opponents as “the departed” and argues that the homily is meant to help the community work through its grief and refocus its attention on their own “spiritual well-being and belief system.” This may be pressing the funerary aspects of epideictic rhetoric too far. While the community has suffered the loss of some of its membership, this loss elicits not mourning on the part of the author but vitriolic attacks. The opponents are liars, murderers, and antichrists. The language seems closer to what one would find in a divorce court than a funeral parlor. Witherington is correct, however, in arguing that the overall function of the epideictic nature of the rhetoric is meant to shore up community identity and loyalty while also distancing the community from the beliefs and practices of the schismatic opponents.

While I agree with the categorizations offered by Watson and Witherington, I ought to note a caveat. Mack notes that a given speech might contain aspects of all six rhetorical subcategories,236 that the very different social circumstances of early Christianity pose difficulties for the rhetorical categorization of early Christian writings,237and that full-blown epideictic rhetoric is not often to be found in the New Testament.238 Indeed, aspects of both judicial and deliberative rhetoric can be detected in 1 John, and epideictic trends can be seen in 2 and 3 John. 1 John 2:12 is certainly meant to place blame upon the schismatics by associating them with Cain, but a forensic category is introduced by depicting them as murderers. The fine line between praise and counsel noted by Aristotle can also be detected, for one gains the distinct impression that 1 John is meant not only to solidify support that already exists, but also to persuade those who are wavering between the community and the schismatics that they should remain faithful to the tradition that they have received.239 Similarly, one finds epideictic elements in 2 and 3 John. 2 John is addressed to ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, and v. 3 is an example of both asyndeton and accumulation, both of which are amplification techniques used in epideictic rhetoric.240 The point may be made best by examining 3 John. As noted above, Watson and Witherington are at odds concerning the rhetorical classification of 3 John, with Watson arguing that it is epideictic and Witherington arguing deliberative. A paradigm of the discussion can be found in 3 John 5-7, which is an excellent example of Aristotle’s point that deliberative and epideictic rhetoric often differ only in their manner of expression. The Elder seems to write with the purpose of solidifying Gaius’s support for the Johannine mission and persuading him to continue in his present course of action. This goal is achieved by praise for both Gaius and the Johannine missionaries; the missionaries are cast as honorable emissaries of Jesus Christ who have testified to Gaius’s honor, and so Gaius should continue his honorable course of conduct and continue to support them. Diotrephes, on the other hand, has scorn heaped upon him for his dishonorable treatment of the missionaries. Surely Gaius would not want to align himself with such a reproachable figure. The vacillations between epideictic and deliberative rhetorical styles are evident: a decision has already been made, but tentatively. Therefore, Gaius must be persuaded to remain true to his decision. Rather than employ the proofs usually associated with deliberative rhetoric, the Elder appeals to ascriptions of praise and blame in order to persuade Gaius. The gist of these observations is that the categories offered by Watson and Witherington for understanding the Johannine Epistles should be used as heuristic tools rather than rigid definitions. Allowance must be made for the fact that elements of all three categories of rhetoric may be found in each Epistle.

A full examination...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• I: Introduction: Stating the Problem
• II: Modeling Religious Schism
• III: Presuppositions Moving Forward
• IV: Applying the Model
• V: Conclusion
• Bibliography