The Church the Apostles Left Behind - Book Report/Review Example

Andrews Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary A CRITICAL BOOK REVIEW An Assignment Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Class THST964/656 Seminar in Historical Theology By Nilson S. Ferreira September, 2014 Y Introduction 3 Summary 3 Koinonia of the Earlier Believers 6 Unity of Kerygma of Acts and the Didache of Paul 7 Logic of Argument 7 Ecclesiology of 1 peter 8 Johannine Biased Imagery of Jesus 9 The Exclusion of the Concept of Synoptic Problem and Source Q 10 Conclusion 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS YIntroducti Summary 3 Koinonia of the Earlier Believers 6 Unity of Kerygma of Acts and the Didache of Paul 7 Logic of Argument 7 Ecclesiology of 1 peter 8 Johannine Biased Imagery of Jesus 8 The Exclusion of the Concept of Synoptic Problem and Source Q 9 Conclusion 10 Introduction 3 Summary 3 Koinonia of the Earlier Believers 6 Unity of Kerygma of Acts and the Didache of Paul 7 Logic of Argument 7 Ecclesiology of 1 peter 8 Johannine Biased Imagery of Jesus 9 The Exclusion of the Concept of Synoptic Problem and Source Q 10 Conclusion 10 Name: Nilson Ferreira Book: The Churches the Apostle Left Behind Author: Raymond Edward Brown Introduction Raymond Edward Brown was a distinguished Roman Catholic biblical scholar and a priest. He had the honour of being the first Roman Catholic professor to be invited to give Sprunt Lectures at Union Theological Seminary. Brown taught at the Union Theological Seminary for 29 years as an emeritus professor in New York. Brown is well known for his rigorous examination of the gospel books, and further, as a prolific author of 35 books; he is recognized as the first Catholic scholar to employ the historical-critical method to analyse the Bible. Apart from The Churches the Apostle Left Behind, notable influential books by Brown include Community of the Beloved Disciple and Antioch and Rome, which he co-authored with John P. Miler. The Churches the Apostle Left Behind is a collection of Brown’s Sprunt Lectures at the Union Theological Seminary from January 28-31 in 1980, which covered Pauline heritage, the heritage of the beloved disciples, and the heritage of the Jews and Gentiles. Unlike his previous books, which were primarily intended for Catholic bishops and believers, The Churches the Apostle Left Behind was aimed at an audience of Protestant scholars as asserted by the author. Summary In this book, Brown’s primary focus was to examine the nature and structure of the early church and the objectives that were set forth by the apostles. In particular, the first four chapters highlight the nature of the church’s heritage during the sub-apostolic era in the New Testament. In Chapter 1, Brown looks at the sub-apostolic, apostolic, and post-apostolic eras, and the wrongful assigning of the authors of the gospels as the affiliated apostles. He thus defines the apostolic era as the second third of the first century and the sub-apostolic era as the last third of the same century. He further relates the post-apostolic age to the period when Christians independently began authoring their individual authority in relation to the gospels, as opposed to relating them with the apostles after their deaths. The second chapter discusses the Pauline heritage in relation to the pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus. In his arguments, Brown documents that the letters to Timothy and Titus underlined the pastoral role of Paul diverting from the previous missionary role. The apostle was more concerned with the structure of the church and preservation of the existing church believers than missionary work. The contents of the letters highly underscore the relevance and significance of organized leadership and obedience to church authority. The fundamental objective of Pauls teaching in the letters was to safeguard the survival of the believers. Chapter 3 underpins Christ as the body of the church. The author addresses Pauline heritage in Colossians and Ephesians and states that these epistles offer apostolic guidance that expounds on the concept of Christ’s body and its relation to the church. Brown argues that Paul resorted to likening the church to Christ’s body, first, to justify the difference in charisma, and second, to show that Christ is the head of the church, together with the inherent qualities such as love and holiness. The fourth chapter indicates Pauline heritage in the books of Luke and Acts. Brown asserts that the author of these two books was highly preoccupied with the Holy Spirit and the role of the Holy Ghost in the church. The role of the Holy Spirit is given profound significance in relation to the life of Jesus Christ and the growth and development of the church. The reception of the Spirit is regarded as a definitional step in becoming a believer, and subsequently apostles are shown to have been hugely guided and protected by the Holy Spirit. However, Brown’s assertion that the sub-apostolic era was characterized by different Pauline churches, as indicated in the book, is ill-founded and not evidence-based. To reiterate the introductory remarks of the Raymond Brown’s book critique of The church the apostles left behind, I asserted that the book’s primary antecedents of the early church and the related polity of the ministerial authority were misleading. In a similar fashion to his examination of the Pauline heritage, Brown embarks on the study of the authors and the overriding message from the first book of Peter in chapter 5. Brown acknowledged that a member of the community of Petrine from wrote the book of 1 Peter. Contrary to previous precepts of the Pauline heritage, 1 Peter underpins the status of converted gentiles as the people of God. In resonance with Pauline mission to make theology acceptable to Christian’s community in the Rome, the author of 1 Peter stressed the importance of unity and the close-knit relationship among believers. Through the salvation of Jesus Christ, Gentile Christians found new families, homes and new status in the kingdom of God that marched Jews class as the Yahweh’s chosen people. On the other hand, chapter 6 discusses the heritage of the beloved disciple based on the gospel and epistles of John. This chapter presents a unique ecclesiology where individual’s relationship with Jesus Christ reigns supreme over pastorals duties and church polity. Johannine discourse outlines that personal relationship with Jesus leads to the provision of life as Christ is the vine and disciples are the branches. Additionally, the gospel gives biblical accounts where women characters are developed and accorded equality with men, unlike the pastorals ecclesiology. The chapter narrates how Johns imagery of Jesus transcended the crucifixion and resurrection to include the continued presence of Christ amidst Christians lives after ascending to heaven. Johannine ecclesiology continues in chapter seven where the relationship between the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ take centre stage. Through his concept of the paraclete-spirit, John explains how Jesus was supreme and triumphant in all his undertakings guided by the Holy Spirit. The last chapter elaborates how the church community should live by the torah of Jesus Christ. Mathew cautions that Jesus intents were never against the law and authority. The representation of the Mathew community exhibits high reverence for the teachings of the Old Testament, the canon laws in particular. The church community of Mathew is consequently shown to borrow much of the Jewish authority, unlike the Pauline communities. Vis a vis, Brown’s assertions that the new testament offers vivid evidence of ecclesiological difference in the early church is misleading and unsubstantiated Koinonia of the Earlier Believers Based on the following objective and critical evaluation of Brown’s work, it suffices to note that the author’s stand that there existed diversity in the early church is erroneous and misleading. Brown’s arguments for the existence of Pauline churches during the sub-apostolic period are erroneous based on the varied teachings of Timothy and Titus, Colossians and Ephesians, and Luke and Acts. However, examination of the lives of the earlier Christians indicates a common religious fellowship that Paul called Koinonia. According to Acts 4:32, “All believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.” Brown’s assertion of varied Pauline teachings in the identified books is factual; however, it would amount to a critical fallacy to describe the association of one group of believers with the Holy Spirit and another group with Christ’s body as division in the early church. Conclusive evidence of Koinonia among distinctive believers of the gospels only goes further to reiterate the diversity of the early church stemming from the background of their apostolic leader. It would hence suffice to mention that the differences that existed in the sub-apostolic church were in the form of fellowship subgroups. These subgroups included Hebraic Jews, Hellenized Jews, convert to Judaism, Samaritans, and Ethiopian Jews. Unity of Kerygma of Acts and the Didache of Paul Subsequently, Brown’s thesis is chiefly pegged on his flawed examination of the content being addressed in the gospels and epistles. In his book, Brown noted explicit discontinuity in the content of Timothy, Colossians, and Acts. However, the pinnacle of the gospel that is the church remains the centrality of the message being communicated. In the same manner, one can argue that an unprecedented unity exists in the Kerygma of Acts and the Didache of Paul. Paul declares Jesus Christ to be the fountain of Christianity, and the epistles further indicate an overwhelming correlation between Paul’s teaching and the traditions of Jesus Christ. Similarly, the teachings of Luke according to Acts synergize with the doctrines of Paul in Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians. The unified teachings of Paul and Luke show their unity on essentials such as death separation, Jesus as the Lord and Saviour, and baptism through faith. Therefore, in essence, the church was united despite the divergent backgrounds of the apostles. Logic of Argument Another key critique of Brown’s book addresses his logic in support of the thesis statement. The author employs an inductive form of reasoning where he generalizes his premises about Pauline heritage to the entire church of the sub-apostolic era. Inductive reasoning places a crucial limitation on the subsequent conclusion. A conclusion from inductive reasoning is regarded as a prediction or conjecture of the premises; thus, additional evidence may support or discredit the conclusion. It hence follows that Browns conclusion on the nature and extent of the sub-apostolic church is subject to further research and evidence that may deny the credibility of an already established conclusion. His generalization of the identified Pauline heritage in the form of the pastoral objective in Timothy and Titus, the body of Christ in Colossians and Ephesians, and the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts offers little representation of or situational evidence from different churches in the sub-apostolic period. Ecclesiology of 1 peter In an attempt to explain the continuance of the church based on the Petrine heritage, Brown examined the underlying ecclesiology of 1 Peter. Brown asserted that the author overemphasized the imagery of the church as family and home to Christian converts. The author supported his thesis of diversity in the early church pegged on the conflict between the Pauline heritage and Petrine heritage. However, it is only right that scholars put into perspective the context and the audience of the Petrine communities during the post-apostolic era. The Petrine diversity could be argued to represent the overriding factors that dominated the target audience peter who were Romans, but was not indented to mirror difference in the ecclesiology of the early church. Indeed Brown acknowledged that early Christians in Rome were subjected to extreme alienation and ostracism (Brown 1984, 78). It is thus vividly clear that any of the twelve disciples could have based their ministerial lectures on the belongingness that the gospel of Christ accorded the newly converted Christians based on the context of the believers. Therefore, the employment of the Petrine principal teachings of the church as the people of God is rightfully founded to expound the historical context of the gentile Christians in Rome. Nevertheless, it does not warrant unquestionable support to the claim that the early church was utterly divided and inconsistent on the predefined course of the early church after the deaths of the apostles. Johannine Biased Imagery of Jesus Another key support to Brown’s assertion of diversity in the early church is reiterated by the heritage of the beloved disciple, Johannine writings. The book demonstrates apostolic divergence on concept of pre-existence and post-existence of Jesus Christ and the imagery portrayed in the four gospels. The author exhibited intentional bias by excessively and portraying subjectively Jesus as the vine without according equal weight to other imageries of Jesus from other gospels and epistles (Brown 1984, 87). In the same fashion, that Brown chooses the allegory of the vine to point divergent teachings from the gospel; other imageries could be employed to show remarkable synergy between the same gospels. Therefore, Brown’s integration of the ideas and imagery from the gospel and epistles of John is highly wanting since both books also contain extensive allegories that depict the foundational unity in the early church. Additionally, the treatment of the pre-existence and post existence of Jesus Christ as discontinuous events as narrated by different authors of the gospels is also ill-founded. The author noted that majority of the gospels mostly dwelled on the crucifixion and resurrection of the Christ while the gospel of John went further to affirm that Jesus Christ was already existing in the midst of the Christians after ascending to heaven. Here one could fault Brown’s logic of argument. The gospels’ emphasize of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus gained profound significance over every aspect of the lord’s life based on the awaited historical promise of a savior. However, John’s choice to reflect Jesus as already existing in glory among the believers after his ascendance to heaven could be viewed as subject to personal interpretation as opposed to inclination of the entire early church. The Exclusion of the Concept of Synoptic Problem and Source Q Throughout the book, Brown has profoundly failed to acknowledge the concept of synoptic problem and Q. The thesis of the Brown’s book has been pegged extensively on the erroneous difference of ecclesiology of the gospels and epistles from the New Testament. However, in order to accord rightful justice to the debate on the polity of the early church, the book failed to mention the synoptic problem. There exist significance similarity and therefore intricate relationship between the gospel books of Mathew, Mark and Luke. Large portions of Mark have been identified within Mathew and Luke. Furthermore, Mathew and Luke also contain over 200 verses that are omitted in Mark. Therefore, the concept raises the question, how could a church that was highly diversified as claimed by Brown exhibit such vivid gospel linkage and interrelationship? Similarly, based on the concept of source Q for the gospels, it emerges that the early church community shared the same source of information since Mathew and Luke indicate evidence of texts borrowed from the theoretical source Q. Therefore, following the concept of the synoptic problem, the polity of the early church should thus portray a united church where community of Mathew, Mark and Luke integrated seamlessly and proclaiming the same ecclesiology. Although the gospels were written at varied times and locations, the early believers continued to share a common denominator, the gospels, thus the authors significantly referenced from other earlier gospel works that were congruent to their beliefs and practices. Conclusion In his attempt to examine the sub-apostolic church, Brown’s assertion that the early Pauline church had different segments based on Pauline heritage adopted by the believers was flawed and highly misleading. Despite the author’s failure to effectively present evidence and expert opinion to support his thesis, the book presented an informative account and exposition of the sub-apostolic era. However, Brown failed to link the intended thesis of the book with the presented arguments and facts reasonably. First, the arguments contradicted the Koinonia of the earlier believers as witnessed by the apostle Paul himself, and the unity of the sub-apostolic church based on the Kerygma of Acts and the Didache of Paul further discredited the thesis. Additional criticism of the book was based on the framework of the argument, which was highly pegged on inductive reasoning by the author. In addition, Brown’s arguments have failed to hold water based on his biased interpretation of the ecclesiology of 1 Peter and Pauline heritage without considering the situational context of the gentile Christians in Rome. Similarly, in his examination of the Johannine writings, Brown again selectively identified limited imagery to display the diversity John’s gospel disregarding numerous allegories in the same gospels that supported similarity and unison of the gospels. Furthermore, the entire book disregarded the prominent concept of synoptic question and Q on the gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke. The synoptic question brings to attention the intricate relationship that existed between the authors from the early church communities. However, the literature of the book provides intellectual insight, and the unorthodox examination of New Testament in relation to the antecedent of the early church hence highly recommended to theological students. Therefore, the limitations notwithstanding, the book is still pertinent for Protestant scholars due to its discussion of the historical background of the sub-apostolic church and the authors of the gospels and epistles of Paul. I would strongly recommend the book for training of clergymen due to its centrist approach on biblical analysis. Reference Brown, R. E. (1984) The Churches the Apostles Left Behind. New York: Paulist Press Bibliography Brown, R. E. (1979). Community of the beloved disciple. Mahwah, Paulist Press. Brown, R. E. (1988). The Gospel and Epistles of John: a concise commentary. Collegeville, Minn, Liturgical Press. Brown, R. E. (1994). An introduction to New Testament christology. New York, Paulist Press. Gleeson, B. (2006). Images and Understandings of the Church in the New Testament: An Overview. Australian eJournal of Theology, AEJT(8). Just, F. (2007). The Synoptic Problem & Proposed Solutions. [online] Catholic-resources.org. Available at: http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm [Accessed 23 Oct. 2014]. Mcdonald, J. I. H. (2004). Kerygma and Didache: the articulation and structure of the earliest Christian message. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Orton, D. E. (1999). The Synoptic Problem and Q: selected studies from Novum Testamentum. Leiden, Brill. Osiek. C. (1986). The church the apostles left behind. Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 105, No. 4 (Dec., 1986), pp. 732-734 Read More