On “Primitive Christianity in Its Contemporary Context” by Rudolf Bultmann ****

This classic work on the kind of thought that went into the making of the Christian sect takes a rather mainstream somewhat-secular scholarly approach to the subject, arguing that Christian practice is a mix of Jewish practice, mystery religions, and Greek philosophy. Although a translation from German, the text reads very much like a lyrical sermon in places, which one might think would wear thin but which actually grew on me. Bultmann quotes extensively from the scriptures, and although there is a fairly robust notes section, he seems often to avoid pointing to other scholars for his assertions, which makes for something of a need to take Bultmann at his word. That he is making claims many other scholars make means this may not be as problematic as it might sound; at the same time, too much emphasis on common ideas means that one isn't necessarily given reason to be convinced of some assertions since there isn't recall to actual primary sources (let alone, secondary) for them.

Bultmann starts with Jewish (really Old Testament) ideas about creation and the afterlife, largely asserting that such ideas grew out of Canaanite and Babylonian religion. Only after Jewish society mixed with that of Persia did ideas about resurrection begin to take shape within the Jewish faith itself. This is a common assertion but one that is not without those who have claimed otherwise—one wouldn't know that there are disagreements with regard to where the teaching about the resurrection derived from reading Bultmann, however. Still, one of the most interesting points Bultmann makes is how the Jewish faith became increasingly future oriented, as its own national problems and eventual demise took shape. That future orientation would in turn, to an extent, set up early Christian teachings, even as Christianity would itself eventually take more of a focus on the present, once it became clear Christ's second coming was not in the near future, though the “future” would survive in the Christian orientation toward an afterlife.

Bultmann then explores Greek philosophy—most especially its growth out of concerns regarding the governorship of the city-state. As the city-state fell by the wayside, other views came to the fore, including Stoicism and the various mystery religions. Bultmann does a great job of showing parallels between these two sets of beliefs with Christian belief, including lack of tie to specific cultures, and openness to peoples of all classes. (Bultmann does not, however, seem at all cognizant of the belief among many scholars that many of the so-called mystery religions did not gain widespread appeal until the second century, after primitive Christianity would have forged its basic ideas; if that is the case, then such religions may have affected Christianity in the second century and later but likely had much less influence on the first decades of the faith.)

Bultmann also looks at the influence of Gnosticism on the church, drawing comparisons between the two systems, mostly looking at parallels, such as a belief in a redeemer and renunciation of concerns with the physical world. A final section looks at early Christian ideas and how all these varying influences helped to forge what became Christianity.

On “Antioch and Rome” by Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier ****

This work is split into two parts, one by Meier on Antioch and one by Brown on Rome. The two men opted to write the book together, in parts, because they saw certain parallels in the development of Christianity within the two churches and thought it best that by pairing up they could write a book that showed off these parallels.

The basic point of view of the two authors falls in line with the common one that Paul represented some kind of radical break from Jewish adherence to the law among Christians and that Peter stood at the other end, as one aligned with James and who insisted on Gentile adherence to Jewish customs. That said, both see Paul and Peter as moderating their views as their ministries matured, such that they came to more closely resemble one another. Still, as the authors state up front, it was Peter's more moderate view (between James and Paul) that won the day, even if some of Paul's radical ideas were folded into the Christian church. This is not a view I share (I tend to take the “all is good” vibe represented in Acts and other Scriptures as real rather than as a gloss intended to put the best face on what was an intense rivalry and disagreement); nevertheless, there is much to appreciate about the book, insofar as the authors do a great job of summarizing much of the scholarship about the church in these two cities and, even more so, about many of the few early sources we have that might relate to these churches.

Meier posits four basic views among early Christians: a conservative strain that insisted Gentiles keep the full Jewish law, including becoming circumcised; a moderate conservative strain that insisted on some Jewish practices but not circumcision; a moderate liberal strain that insisted on neither Jewish food laws nor circumcision; and a liberal straing that rid the church of not only Jewish food customs and circumcision but also of Jewish festivals. Although the authors seem to posit that Peter was of the moderate conservative strain and Paul somewhere between moderate liberal and liberal and that Peter won out, it seems to me that if one takes such a stand, it was actually the liberals who eventually won out, as contemporary Christianity exhibits little of the Jewish faith outside of the use of its scriptures.

Along the way, Meier makes a good case for why Matthew was written in Antioch around 90 CE, and also explores similar dating, place, and authority for the Didache and the Ignatian letters, including which rescension should be accepted. Brown similarly explores the authorship and tie of certain other books to Rome, including 1 Peter, Hebrews, and 1 Clement. Although there is room for disagreement, the arguments are well reasoned and give one much to think about with regard to the development of these two Christian communities.

On “The Incredible Human Potential” by Herbert W. Armstrong ****

This is another Armstrong book I hadn't read in decades. I enjoyed its thoroughness. Likely several booklets, that WCG offered, such as Why Were You Born?, essentially were chapters in this text. But put all together, the work has a kind of vibe. In many ways, it sums up the teachings of the Worldwide Church of God in the late 1970s. In that sense, it seemed a bit dated, but it also captures the spirit of many books of the era—that vibe. There's a kind of spiritualist self-help feel to it. This is what you could become, what God intends for you!

The work seems most dated (and disappointing) in its discussion of the church. Armstrong admits that the church is the people, and yet at times, he pretty clearly ties the definition of the church into the legally incorporated organization he served as the legal head of. It seems self-serving and given that that entity has mostly ceased to exist in any recognizable form, it lends a lack of credence and applicability to some of the material.

But in other respects, he lays out the faith as many have understood it, a reading that is distinct among Christian sects: God's purpose for our lives, how human minds work, why there is so much evil, and what happens after death.