Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity

by Raymond E. Brown, John P. Meier

Two major New Testament scholars use the tools of modern biblical interpretation to reconstruct the history of two of the most important Christian centers of the first-century church. †

Genres: History, Religion, Theology

242 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 1983

About the author

Roman Catholic priest, member of Society of Saint-Sulpice and a prominent biblical scholar, esteemed by not only his colleagues of the same confession. One of the first Roman Catholic scholars to apply historical-critical analysis to the Bible.

Reviews

[Jarrett Vandiver · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was an in-depth study of the earliest church in Antioch and Rome by two scholars, John Meier and Raymond Brown. What I found most interesting was their take on Peter’s ministry as being the chief rabbi of the universal church and mediator between extremes. It was in Antioch and Rome that Peter was able to mediate between the extremes of hardline conservative Judaism and the “liberal” Hellenism that sought to erase Judaism from Christianity altogether.

It was in Rome that Peter and Paul died together, forging a unity that would make the Roman church the successor to Peter’s ministry, the church that for 2000 years has mediated between extremes, defeated heresy, and acted as universal shepherd.

[Bishop · Rating 4 out of 5]

I highly recommend this book! I enjoyed the rich historical background it gives on the early Christianity of the first and second century.

[Jon · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read of the divisions in the early Church before and, indeed, of Paul changing his mind with regard to the imminence of the second coming. But I have never read such a brief, pointed development of the divisions of a sociological unit as it struggles to find itself. And the Church was
indeed such a sociological unit, for the church, the Catholic Christian Church, is within history which is subject to argument and change.

I xeroxed the introduction and conclusion not just for myself but for Louis, who has written of the spectrum of conservative to liberal in his own terms. I wonder what he will say.

I just read those two sections -- I do not have the time to read the whole of the book. But I am most impressed by the way Brown and Meier, two great names in biblical studies, have balanced out learning and faith.

[Matthew Harris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though a bit antiquated, Antioch and Rome is a worthwhile read to get one acquainted with the development of Christianity in Syrian-Antioch and of course Rome. I enjoyed the First half of the book on Antioch more so than the second-half on Rome. I liked how the scriptural evidence, Primary source material such as the Didache, and the Letters of Ignatius are visited and used. I enjoyed the Matthean analysis and the discussion of theological developments at Antioch. I have to admit that it helped reading Eusebius' Ecclesiastical history while reading Antioch and Rome. I believe it is best to use such a work as Antioch and Rome as a framework to hang the historical evidence upon. This work is a must read for anyone who claims to be a New Testament scholar, teacher, or religious instructor.

On the part about Rome, I enjoyed how Brown brings out the fact that the hierarchy and political structure of the Roman Empire, lend itself well to providing a syncretic structure for the hierarchy of the Church to adapt itself to. I didn't quite enjoy the conjecture and speculation, yet it is necessary to see the forks in the road of the scholarship to see differing viewpoints.Brown, really covers some great discussions about how Peter are Paul were set up to be killed due to intense envy and that Ultra-conservative Jewish-Christians were more than likely the culprits behind such set-ups. I saw this as really intriguing. I enjoyed the analysis of Romans being an epistle that Paul wrote to Christians situated at Romans and Brown juxtaposes it to Galatians and conveys that Romans is obviously a more moderate view of Paul than his radical anti-Law view in Galatians. Next, Brown moves on to 1 Peter and shows how this was a book more-than likely written from Rome, and cited some sources that state that it could have been written by Paul, but was attributed to Peter, and compares it to Romans showing the commonality between the theology of the two works.

Brown also discusses the Epistle to the Hebrews. This is where I think problems arise since this is more conjecture, opinion, and speculation. I was thinking why couldn't Hebrews, even if written after the death of Paul be toward the Hebrews of Pella who evacuated Jerusalem? Such commentary would be for another day. I will not spend much time on his discussion of Hebrews.

After discussing the Christian Church at Rome based upon these sources, Brown then delves into 1 Clement, which was written by Bishop Clement of Rome to the Corinthians circa 96 AD/CE. Here, Brown lays the ground work upon which Rome becomes a regulator of the Church throughout the Mediterranean world.

Overall, the Book was organized by two authors. From someone who didn't know much about Antioch, I was grateful to be exposed to the development and longevity of Christianity in Antioch. Obviously I came to the book with a great knowledge of the New Testament, and the limitations of the Bible as a historical text; yet I did understand much about Christianity in Alexandrian, Egypt, Jerusalem, and Rome (although not to the extent of Brown). A great read for the lay-person and the scholar alike.