On “The Community of the Beloved Disciple” by Raymond E. Brown ***

Brown's focus on the author(s) of the Gospel of John and the epistles of John provides some great insights, but as with the other work I've read of his, on Antioch and Rome, his conservatism on some levels mixes with conjecture to the extent that I found the work a bit hard to believe in spots. The basic aim of the book is to trace the development of the Johannine community, which Brown takes as being independent of other Christian groups in its early phases.

The earliest Johannine Christians were Jews with a lot of respect for Jesus but who were to an extent outside the realm of typical Jewish believers. Then, folded into them were the Samaritans, who brought along into belief a higher Christology. These developments in turn eventually led to their dismissal from the Jewish synagogues, which is when the Fourth Gospel was written, after this dismissal. Brown does some close readings of John to show how that most likely was the case, which I enjoyed being reminded of. For Brown, the author and person the community looks to is someone known as the Beloved Disciple. How or why John ends up being affiliated with the Beloved Disciple, I'm not sure, but for the community itself it is this disciple who is most important, a disciple who in Brown's theory, is not John.

With the group dismissed from the synagogue, it begins to turn its criticism to “outsiders” (as in the first epistle). These are people who retain relationships with the synagogue, whether as Jews or as hidden Christians, but more schism is on the horizon.

With time, this Gospel is interpreted in different ways by members of the community, and there is a split in the community, with one group moving steadily toward docetism and the other eventually being subsumed by the larger Christian community/church. This is the origin of the epistles for Brown, with one man writing against the group that is moving toward docetism. Because the community was not strongly authoritarian but rather followed the lead of the Holy Spirit, the irony of the epistles is that the author has to try to balance this lead of the Spirit with a certain dallying on authority. He does that by claiming only his group is following the lead of that Spirit. Eventually, with Ignatius, the idea becomes that one follows the leaders who are spirit led.

At least one author has called into question the idea that so many Christian groups existed in the first century, and while I think he might be a bit too conservative in stating that there really was just the one church—I do think some schisms did happen—Brown seems to be positing so many groups in the first century that one wonders who a church even came to be. I don't really buy that there was a Johannine community that was distinct from Paul and from the Twelve, headed by Peter or that some unnamed individual who goes undiscussed in the other gospels was a close affiliator with Jesus and only shows up in the Fourth Gospel.

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.