Raymond E. Brown

Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple.
Introduction: Problem and Method in Discerning Johannine Ecclesiology, p. 13-24

(Detailed summary)

Vocabulary

The word "church" (ekklēsia) is absent from the fourth Gospel and the first two Johannine epistles, and is found only in the third epistle, where two of the three occurrences are associated with Diotrephes, whom the author condemns. Similarly, other words usually associated with ecclesiology are absent, such as "kingdom of God" (only in 3:3, 5 in the dialogue with Nicodemus), "people of God," and "apostle." One would search in vain in this theology for the salvific aspect of being together in a community.
Was the Johannine Church a cult?

One feature of Johannine ecclesiology is its strong opposition to those outside the church, whether they be the "world," the "Jews," or other Christians. This raises the question: are we dealing with a sect? Of course, it all depends on our definition of "sect," i.e., in relation to other religious groups, including other Christians, or in relation to society at large.

Therefore, the fundamental question we should be asking is this: was the Johannine community recognized by other Christian churches, or was it closed in on itself and formed a kind of exclusive circle? Therefore, the Johannine church would be a de facto sect if, implicitly or explicitly, it had broken communion (koinōnia) with most other Christians. Some biblical scholars have claimed that it was a sect based on the fact that the Gnostics, a heretical movement in the early 2nd century, adopted the fourth Gospel as their own, forgetting that Irenaeus of Lyon, at the same time, recognized this Gospel as orthodox. But we could speak of a sect if we found in the Gospel of John an anti-sacramental or non-sacramental tendency, or even an anti-Petrine or anti-institutional tendency, or if it presented a certain naive docetism (Jesus only pretended to be human). In all this, one would search in vain for conclusive evidence. Therefore, it is better to pursue more fruitful avenues of analysis.
A multi-level reading

Over the past ten years, biblical scholars have favored a multi-level approach that allows us to discover both Jesus and the community that believes in him. Such an approach presupposes the following:
- First, a Gospel reveals how an evangelist conceived of and presented Jesus to a Christian community during the late first century, which indirectly gives us some insight into community life at the time the Gospel was written.
- Second, through source analysis, the Gospels reveal something of the pre-Gospel history of the evangelist's Christological views; and indirectly, they also reveal something of the history of the community earlier in the first century, especially if the sources were part of the community's heritage;
- Third, the Gospels offer limited means for reconstructing the ministry and message of the historical Jesus.
The difficulties of such an approach

While we accept in principle the ability to detect a community life beneath the surface of the Gospel narrative, we must nevertheless clearly recognize the methodological difficulties of such an approach. Since the presentation of Jesus and his message is the evangelist's primary goal, it goes without saying that Jesus' actions and words are included in his account because they appear relevant to the benefit of his community. And this is how we gain some knowledge of this community. But it is difficult to be more precise.

Take, for example, the author of the Gospel according to Mark, who describes the Twelve, and Peter in particular, as people incapable of understanding Jesus when he speaks of the necessity of his passion (Mk 8:17-21, 27-33; 9:6, 32; 14:37). The author makes it quite clear to his community that it is difficult to attain authentic faith in Jesus, because it requires participation in his passion; this is what he means by the Twelve's incomprehension. But to go further and speak of a conflict between the Twelve and the early Christians, as some biblical scholars have done, goes beyond the Gospel data.

All the Gospels were written several years after the experience of Jesus' resurrection and therefore interpret Jesus' ministry in the light of Easter faith. Since Mark was the first to write a Gospel, he is the one who made the least effort to retouch the character of Jesus in this light. Thus, he does not hesitate to never present Mary as a disciple of Jesus during his ministry (Mk 3:21, 31-35; 6:4), a fact he considers useful in his catechesis to demonstrate that the physical family enjoyed no privileges in the Christian movement. But to assert on this basis that Mary never became a Christian, as some biblical scholars have done, goes beyond the Gospel data.
The pitfalls of the silence argument

We must be careful not to draw conclusions based on what the Gospels do not say. Take, for example, the original ending of the Gospel according to Mark (16:8), which does not contain any accounts of appearances to the Twelve. How should we interpret this fact? One way to interpret it is to see it as an example of an early stage of the Gospel genre before the development of the resurrection narratives. But some biblical scholars venture to see it as a way of demoting the Twelve.
The danger of posing hypothetical sources

Some biblical scholars propose hypothetical sources and, based on these, determine a theological vision by observing how the evangelist modified this source. The only case where we can postulate a source with any certainty is that of Matthew and Luke: it is fairly clear that one of their sources was Mark. But in the case of Mark and John, determining their pre-evangelical sources can only be pure conjecture. Some biblical scholars think they recognize certain themes in what they see as pre-evangelical material, then add other passages that seem to be in harmony with them. It is not surprising that the theological vision that emerges from this reconstruction is similar to the criteria used for this reconstruction; we are in a circular argument.
Our approach
1. Our conclusions will be based on the existing text, not on a hypothetical reconstruction of the sources.
2. We will focus on those passages in John that differ significantly from the Synoptic Gospels, particularly those that are most likely to be historical. It should be remembered that the fourth Gospel claims to be an eyewitness account (19:35; 21:24) and, in fact, presents an important historical tradition about Jesus. Therefore, a passage in which John modifies the image of Jesus' historical ministry reflects a significant theological interest.
3. If we derive certain arguments from the author's silence, we will restrict these arguments to things that the author could hardly have overlooked accidentally. Thus, when John ignores the term "apostle," which is widely used by most New Testament authors, this silence is probably deliberate and significant. Similarly, the absence of the Eucharistic action on the bread and cup during the Last Supper, given the presence of this tradition in the Synoptics and in Paul, can hardly be accidental. On the other hand, the absence of a virginal conception of Jesus, present only in Matthew and Luke, could be explained simply by the evangelist's ignorance of such a tradition.
The four phases of Johannine community life

In our reconstruction of the Johannine community, we identify four phases.
1. Phase One refers to the pre-evangelical era, which bears witness to the origins of the community and its relations with Judaism in the middle of the 1st century. This period is marked by controversies between Johannine Christians and synagogue leaders. It is also marked by the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 (see Jn 11:48), and by what preceded it, i.e., the Jewish revolt against Rome that began around the year 66. This entire period, which began around the middle of the year 50 and ended around the end of the year 80, preceded the writing of the fourth Gospel, which took place after the expulsion of the Johannine Christians from the synagogue (Jn 9:22; 16:2) around the year 85 because of their claims about Jesus. This expulsion reflects a situation in the last third of the first century when the center of Jewish teaching was located in Yavne and under Pharisee control, and where the twelfth blessing of the Eighteen Blessings (Shemoneh Esreh), which was recited in the synagogue, was probably modified to include a curse against the minim, i.e. the deviants who seem to include Christian Jews.
2. Phase Two covers the period when the Gospel was written. Although there may have been more than one version of the Gospel, the main text is believed to have been written around the year 90. At that time, the expulsion from the synagogue was a past event, and persecution by the Jews continued, leaving deep wounds, as can be seen from the use of the word "the Jews" in the Gospel. Debates with these Jews became all the more intense as Christians emphasized a high Christology, i.e., the association of Jesus with divinity. Such Christology also had an impact on relations with other Christians whom the Johannine Christians considered to have an inadequate faith. Then, faced with the difficulties of reaching pagans in their preaching, Johannine Christians began to consider the world as belonging to darkness.
3. Phase Three is reflected in the Johannine Epistles, where we find divided communities (see 1 Jn 2:19), probably around the year 100. The dissensions seem to revolve around two groups that interpret John's Gospel in opposite ways with regard to Christology, ethics, eschatology, and pneumatology. Judging by the pessimistic tone of the author, who denounces false teachers and believes that the last hour has come, the secessionists seem to be more numerous (1 Jn 4:5).
4. Phase Four sees the dissolution of both groups after the writing of the epistles. The secessionists, breaking communion with the more conservative elements of the Johannine community, quickly evolved in the 2nd century towards Docetism, Gnosticism, Cerinthianism, and Montanism. As for those who remained faithful to 1 John, they seem to have joined what Ignatius of Antioch calls "the Catholic Church" at the beginning of the 2nd century, as indicated by the growing acceptance of Johannine Christology of the pre-existence of the Word. But this amalgamation came at the price of accepting a more authoritarian ecclesial structure and recognizing that the Paraclete alone as a teacher did not offer sufficient guidance in the face of the secessionists. And the secessionists' use of the fourth Gospel delayed its acceptance into the canon of Scripture.