Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind.
Chapter 1: The Sub-Apostolic Era in the New Testament, p. 13-30

(Detailed summary)

Indeed, even though several are called “apostles” in the New Testament, we only have detailed information about three of them. Let us first consider the Twelve. Most of them are little more than names to us. Excluding Judas Iscariot, the first four names stand out, first the two brothers Peter and Andrew, then the other two, James and John. Although they appear regularly with Jesus in the Gospels, Andrew disappears from the rest of the New Testament, James dies a martyr in the 40s (Acts 12:2), and John is only mentioned in Peter's shadow in a few scenes (Acts 3:1; 4:13; 8:14; Galatians 2:9). Later tradition will enhance John's biography by identifying him with the beloved disciple of the fourth Gospel, but this identification is far from certain. In the end, Peter remains the only member of the Twelve about whose ecclesiastical career we are fairly well informed, thanks to Paul's letters to the Galatians and Corinthians, the book of Acts, and the letters of the Petrine tradition. Apart from the Twelve, we have good information about Paul, thanks to the 13 letters attributed to him and the biographical information in the Acts of the Apostles. James, the “brother of the Lord,” was probably an apostle, even though he was not part of the group of Twelve. His importance as leader of the Jerusalem community is attested to both by the Pauline letters and by the Acts of the Apostles, as well as by the letter attributed to him and the letter of Jude, whose author identifies himself by his relationship to James. According to a very reliable tradition, Peter and Paul died in Rome in the 60s, and James also died in Jerusalem in the 60s. Thus, by the end of the second third of the first century, i.e., in the year 67, the three apostles about whom we know details of their lives had disappeared from the scene.

The term “apostolic period” should therefore be confined to the second third of the first century, and the last third of that century should be designated as the “sub-apostolic” period. Therefore, with the exception of Paul's undisputed letters (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1-2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon), most of the New Testament texts were written in the last third of the first century, a period when authors wrote without using their names and, occasionally, under the guise of the earlier apostles. Later tradition tended to attribute authorship to the initially anonymous gospels in order to give them a certain authority. As for the Deutero-Pauline epistles (the Pastoral Epistles, Ephesians, and Colossians) and the Catholic Epistles, the designation of authors such as Paul, James, Peter, John, and Jude probably represents a claim to belong to a specific apostolic tradition rather than an objective designation of apostolic writing. For what matters in this sub-apostolic period is fidelity to certain great apostles.

Finally, the term “post-apostolic period” refers to the period beginning at the end of the century, when Christian writings were published under their own authority, for example, the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and the Letter from the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, known as 1 Clement. These “third generation” writings move away from the direct claim to the heritage of the apostles.

1. Various scientific approaches to the sub-apostolic period

   Let us return to the problem stated at the outset, where the Church could no longer depend on the testimony of those who could say, “I have seen”? Clement of Rome's response (see 1 Clement 42 and 44), around the year 96, was to affirm that, just as Jesus appointed apostles (understood to be the Twelve with Paul), the apostles also appointed bishops or presbyters to succeed them. Consequently, it was considered that there had been an orderly succession of authority in the sub-apostolic era. This classical thesis has been challenged by modern studies (both Roman Catholic and Protestant), which have shown that Clement's view was too simplistic and not universal.

   Various biblical scholars have offered their answers.

   1. In a somewhat Hegelian view of church history, the thesis and antithesis would be represented by James and Paul, a pro-Jewish conception of Christianity (James) in conflict with a pro-pagan conception (Paul). In the 2nd century, a synthesis emerged around the figure of Peter, symbolizing a Christianity that was intermediate between that of Paul and that of James. This hypothesis is based on the late dating of certain New Testament writings, such as the Acts of the Apostles, which is questioned by modern criticism, which considers that the attitudes represented by James, Paul, and Peter were simultaneous and early.

   2. During the New Testament period and its immediate aftermath, there were many diverse and contradictory Christian opinions, and it was only in the 2nd century that a dominant view emerged, which became orthodoxy; this orthodoxy spread from Rome to the East. It must be acknowledged that there was a certain diversity during the New Testament period. But this theory fails to adequately explain how such orthodoxy came about.

   3. Another answer is based on the observation that at the end of the apostolic and sub-apostolic periods, Ephesus and Rome emerged as the major Christian centers with which many New Testament books can be associated. Rome was considered to represent Jewish Christianity, which was more conservative from the outset and advocated a high ecclesiology and a weak Christology (the emphasis was on the humanity of Jesus). Ephesus was associated with the epistles to the Colossians, the Ephesians, and the fourth gospel, works with a low ecclesiology, in the sense that they attached little importance to the structure of the Church, but with a high Christology (where the emphasis was on the divinity of Jesus). Despite the nuances that could be added to this view, the fact remains that this intuition is valid.

   Our approach will be different. We will examine a number of different ecclesial situations reflected in the sub-apostolic works of the New Testament, focusing on the most important element that enabled each church to survive after the departure of its hero or apostolic guide.

2. Different Churches Detectable in the New Testament
   1. The Pauline tradition

      Let us begin with the sub-apostolic descendants of the apostle Paul. In the 20 years following his death, divergent schools of thought developed within the communities that were under his influence. At least three different post-Pauline currents can be detected through an analysis of the New Testament works associated with Paul: one illustrated by 1) the Pastoral Epistles, another by 2) the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, and the last by 3) Luke/Acts.

      • The author of Luke/Acts idealizes Paul, dividing Christian history into two almost equal periods centered first on Peter and then on Paul. The latter embodies God's plan to spread Christianity from Jerusalem to Rome and “to the ends of the earth.” However, the author of Acts never mentions that Paul wrote a letter and reveals no knowledge of Paul's letters.

      • In line with the Pauline heritage represented by Colossians and Ephesians, Paul is greatly honored as an apostle capable of addressing communities with authority, as one of the apostles (and prophets) on whom the Church is founded (Eph 2:20). It is also very clear that the author of Ephesians was familiar with many of Paul's letters, especially Colossians, and that he drew inspiration from them in formulating his own thoughts.

      Thus, if the author of Luke/Acts and the author of Ephesians went further than Paul did, the former did so apparently independently of Paul's writings, while the latter did so with heavy reliance on them.

      When it comes to relations with Judaism, there are also difference.

      1. In the epistle to the Ephesians, the relationship between Jews and Gentiles seems to have been resolved peacefully. The wall of hostility has been torn down; those who were once far away have been brought near; Jews and Gentiles are reconciled in one body with God through the cross (Eph 2:11-22).

      2. On the other hand, for the author of Acts (28:25-29), Paul's very last words at the end of the book indicate that the Jews will never see, hear, or understand; they are definitively excluded from the Gospel. According to the Paul of Acts, salvation is intended for the Gentiles who will listen and understand. We are therefore faced with two communities that have very different views on the future relationship between Jews and pagans.

      3. Both attitudes are far removed from that of the historical Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, who argues that the Gentiles converted to make the Jews jealous, that the Jews themselves will eventually convert, and that the Gentiles are only a branch of wild olive grafted onto the tree of Israel (Rom 11:11-26).

      When we turn to the Pastoral Epistles, namely 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, we find an even different post-Pauline situation. The author of these works remains concerned about the Judaizers (among others) and their demand for circumcision. In addition, he insists on the structure of the Church and the appointment of church leaders. This insistence is absent in both Colossians/Ephesians and Luke/Acts, even though both works acknowledge the existence of church officials. As we can see, there is a great deal of variety in what is considered important in the conception of the Church. All these variations occur within the Pauline tradition, in works that are directly or indirectly related to the apostle! We can assume that the churches to which these works are addressed, even though they were probably in communion with each other, had different ways of thinking, emphasizing different aspects of the great Pauline tradition.

      Given such variations within a single tradition, the Pauline tradition, it is not surprising to find variations with traditions other than the Pauline tradition, such as the Johannine tradition.

   2. The Johannine tradition

      Let's give two examples of variations between the two traditions.

      1. Christology

         John presents us with a “high” Christology, emphasizing the divinity of Jesus. Certain similarities can be found between the fourth Gospel and the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians in terms of “high” Christology, in which the pre-existing divinity of Jesus is emphasized. However, such a Christological criterion would distinguish Luke/Acts from the fourth Gospel (and the epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians), since there is no explicit mention of pre-existence in Luke's writings.

      2. The relationship to Judaism

         In John, Christians were expelled from synagogues (9:22; 16:2); Jews are practically another religion, or even worse, since they have the devil as their father (8:44). The liturgical feasts inherited from the Old Testament are now “Jewish” feasts (6:4; 7:2) and therefore do not concern Christians. Even though tradition places the writing of the fourth gospel in Ephesus, the same city to which the Epistle to the Ephesians is addressed, it is difficult to imagine that in Johannine Christianity the wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles had been broken down, as in the situation envisaged by the Ephesians.

      We have already noted that Ephesus was one of the major Christian centers of the apostolic and sub-apostolic periods, with which many books of the New Testament were associated. It is very likely that Ephesus had different churches with different theologies. We must remember that the Christian situation in a large city involved a number of house churches where 20 or 30 people gathered; there is therefore no reason why there should not have been house churches of different traditions in the same city, for example, of the Pauline tradition, the Johannine tradition, the Petrine or apostolic tradition, and even the ultra-conservative Judeo-Christian tradition. Even though house churches of one tradition probably had relationships of communion with those of another tradition, Christians could not easily change churches. Furthermore, according to 2 and 3 John, it is clear that once an internal schism had taken place, there was no longer any communion between the two parties within the same tradition, nor admission into the respective house churches (2 John 10; 3 John 9-10).

      Ephesus is also associated with both the Johannine tradition and Revelation. What is the truth of the matter? The harsh remarks about the “synagogue of Satan” and “the Jews” (Rev 2:9; 3:9) once again suggest the existence of a group in which the wall of hostility had not been broken down (contrary to Eph 2:11-22).

      When we compare Revelation with the Johannine tradition, we note both similarities and differences.

      1. Similarities
         • The theme of the replacement of Jerusalem and the earthly Temple by a heavenly Jerusalem and the presence of God and Christ
         • Revelation and 1 John both emphasize the purifying and sanctifying power of the blood of Christ (Rev 1:5; 5:9; 7:14; 1 John 1:7 and 5:6-8).

      2. Differences
         • Revelation emphasizes final eschatology, while the fourth gospel emphasizes realized eschatology
         • 1 John highlights the existence of false teachers (1 Jn 2:27) and false prophets (4:1) among those who have seceded from the Johannine community. But in Revelation, there are prophets in the communities (Rev 11:10; 16:6), including the author himself (1:3; 22:9, 19), who is a prophet. Revelation also knows of false prophets (16:13) and false teachers who do not yet seem to have been expelled from the community (2:20).
         • Neither the fourth Gospel nor the Johannine epistles mention the apostles, while Revelation shows respect for the “apostles and prophets” (18:20) and particular veneration for the twelve apostles of the Lamb (21:14).

      What could this community behind the Book of Revelation have been, which would explain both these similarities and differences? It is possible that it was a branch of the early Johannine community that had not yet been catechized by the fourth gospel in its final version.

      Finally, it should be noted that Revelation differs from the Pauline tradition in its anti-imperial attitude: the Roman Empire and the cult of the emperor are the beastly puppets of Satan (Rev 13), and the numerical value of Nero's name (666) is the number of the beast (Rev 13:18). This certainly differs from the pro-imperial attitude attested in Romans 13:1-7.

   3. Epistle to the Hebrews
      1. Relationship with the fourth Gospel

         The Epistle to the Hebrews is similar to the fourth Gospel in proclaiming Jesus as God, a Son through whom the world was created (Heb 1:2-3, 8). Nevertheless, John does not attribute to Jesus' humanity the limitations found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, such as being tempted (Heb 4:15), learning obedience (Heb 5:8), and being made perfect (Heb 5:9). It is certain that the Johannine Jesus, who refused to pray to be delivered from the hour of death (Jn 12:27-28), could not be described as crying out with tears to God, who was able to save him from death (Heb 5:7).

      2. Relationship with Paul

         In the Eastern Churches and later in the universal Church, the Epistle to the Hebrews was considered to be Paul's fourteenth letter, an opinion that virtually no scholar shares today. The style of the Epistle to the Hebrews is completely different from that of Paul, and nothing in the apostle's writings corresponds to the radical and prolonged criticism of Israelite worship that is at the heart of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Indeed, in chapters 9 to 11 and 15 to 16 of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul shows himself to be much more conservative about Judaism and its cultic language than the Epistle to the Hebrews, which would replace the sacrifices, priesthood, and tabernacle of the Old Testament.

   4. Epistle from 1 Peter

      Although 1 Peter is written in the name of the first of the Twelve, most scholars believe that it was written by a disciple of Peter after his death. It represents the point of view of the Roman Church, to which the Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed as a correction. For example, 1 Peter 1:13–2:10 applies the entire experience of Israel's Exodus to pagan converts, so that they left their former bondage and were redeemed by the blood of a lamb, while going through a period of wandering toward a promised inheritance. Thus, while in the Epistle to the Hebrews the Levitical priesthood was replaced by Christ, in 1 Peter the Christian people constitute a royal priesthood. Preservation and transformation, rather than replacement, characterize the theology of 1 Peter. The language of Judaism is used as if it belonged to Christianity and there were no other claimants.

   5. Epistle from James

      The perspective of the Epistle of James is even more Jewish. While the First Epistle of Peter is addressed to the chosen exiles of the diaspora (probably Christians of pagan origin), that of James is addressed to the twelve tribes of the diaspora (perhaps Jewish Christians). James 2:2 assumes that the Christian recipients gather in a synagogue. There are no passages dealing with Christology, but there is an emphasis on the morality of the prophets of Israel: religion consists in “visiting orphans and widows in their affliction” (Jas 1:27); and no partiality should be shown to the rich over the poor (Jas 2:1-7). It is therefore possible that James was addressing a Christian community in the last third of the century, where belief in Jesus meant an exaltation of Jewish values, but not a real break with Judaism. We know that in post-New Testament literature, such as the Pseudo-Clementines, James became the hero par excellence of Christians of Jewish origin who differed from Jews only in their faith in Christ, but not in their observance of the law. This would explain why the author writes this letter claiming the authority of James, for we read: “Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all” (Jas 2:10). It is certain that the emphasis on the fact that “a man is justified by his works and not by faith alone” (2:24) reflects values different from those of Paul in Romans 3:28: “A man is justified by faith, apart from the works of the law.”

   6. Gospel according to Matthew

      The Gospel according to Matthew is similar in many ways to the letter of James, even though it is clear that Matthew is addressing a Jewish Christian community that included a large number of Christian followers of pagan origin. This mixed community learns that not even the smallest detail of the Law will pass away until everything is fulfilled (Matthew 5:18). Although Jesus' attitude, “You have heard that it was said... but I say to you” (Mt 5), instills attitudes that are not very legalistic, the perspective is not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill the divine purpose that underlies it. Paul and Matthew may have reached similar practical conclusions regarding individual obligations, but Paul would have done so based on the principle that Christ is the end of the Law (Rom 10:4), while Matthew would have considered Jesus to be the perfect and demanding lawgiver of the eschatological period.

      When comparing Matthew to Paul, we note that he probably did not go through the Pauline crisis regarding the Law and was able to maintain a more moderate and positive attitude toward the Jewish heritage. If new wine cannot be put into old wineskins without destroying them, Matthew encourages an arrangement that allows all wineskins, new and old, to be preserved (Mt 9:17). The relationship of the Matthew community with Judaism was perhaps less disruptive than that of the Johannine community, but more troubled than that of the community addressed by James. It is not without reason that the Gospel of Matthew was the first, and not only in the order of the canon.

   7. Gospel according to Mark

      This Gospel presents a difficult case, because we are unable to identify its sources and therefore unable to specify how it may have been modified for catechetical purposes. It is true that Mark describes the Twelve as uncomprehending because Jesus had not yet suffered, but this treatment implies nothing more than the fact that their important role after the crucifixion required a difficult period of initiation: all Christians believe through the prism of the cross, even the greatest ones. This encouragement is addressed to Christians who are themselves suffering. And if Mark was written for the Roman Church, he may have wanted to reassure readers that Peter's recent sufferings and death under Nero were not a defeat, but a step toward victory.

   8. Final thoughts

      We found a remarkable diversity of sub-apostolic thought: evidence of three different forms of post-Pauline thought (the Pastoral Epistles, Colossians/Ephesians, Luke/Acts), evidence of two different forms of post-Johannine thought (the followers of 1 John and their secessionist opponents), works exhibiting both Pauline and Johannine similarities (Revelation, Hebrews), a post-Petrine witness (1 Peter), and some witnesses of a more conservative, Law-observant Christianity (Matthew, James). I have highlighted the significant differences between these witnesses, whose relationships are very complex.

      In reconstructing the community situations of the sub-apostolic period, a serious methodological problem is determining whether the thought expressed is specific to the author or whether it is truly shared by a community. When it comes to epistles or letters, the situation is often easier to determine. Nevertheless, since all these works have been preserved, we can be certain that at least some Christians found guidance in them. Another methodological problem concerns the caution that must be exercised regarding the extent to which the writing reflects the opinions of the community. While the pastoral epistles emphasize the presbyteral structure and the epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians emphasize the body of Christ, this does not mean that the Christians who received the pastoral epistles and the author who wrote them were unaware of the theology of the body of Christ, nor that those who participated in the epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians were unaware of the presbyteral structure. We can only be certain of the positive emphasis that Christians heard in a particular work.

      In the following chapters, we will see how the different emphasis placed in each of these seven testimonies responded to the question of survival after the death of the great first generation of apostolic guides or heroes. For the problem of continuity and succession inevitably arises with the disappearance of the original leaders of a movement. The crisis is all the more serious because these leaders innovated by distancing their disciples from previous criteria of authority. At the time of the apostles' death, the churches had already distanced themselves or broken with much of what had previously constituted authority in Judaism; from then on, they had to survive without the living tutelage of the great figures of the first generation. The responses of their immediate successors have been repeated throughout the ages, not in the sense that one church repeated one response and another church repeated another, but in the sense that each church repeated several of the responses.