Raymond E. Brown’s The Community of the Beloved Disciple (Paulist Press, New York, 1979) is a book that requires a minimum understanding of the Scriptures and the way they were composed. It is not necessary to be an expert but, without any knowledge, the content can turn a little bit dull for the reader.
Apart from that, this book contextualizes with solid arguments the community that surrounded the composition of the Gospel of John and the three Epistles of John. It was labeled “the Community of the Beloved Disciple.”
Even more remarkable than that, Brown feels comfortable to reconstruct four different phases or stages of that Community: (i) how they lived and thought before the Gospel was written, (ii) during the composition of the Gospel, (iii) at the time the Epistles were written and (iv) after that.
Under this structure, the author depicted the different groups that interacted with the community: the Jews, the followers of John the Baptists, some secessionists that emerged from the Community and some others.
What surprised me immensely was that the Community of the Beloved Disciple was at odds with another Christian community of that era: the community around the Apostles, especially Peter. In fact, the former regarded the Christology of the latter as a second-hand one. Additionally, the Community of the Beloved Disciple was less familiar with the hierarchy that marked the Peter-Paul Christian Community.
The most glorious conclusion is drawn by Raymond Brown. In the end, both communities merged. But in that process, the only Church of Christ was enriched. The Community of the Beloved Disciple accepted obedience towards the appointed presbyter-bishop. On the other hand, the Peter-Paul community embodied the higher Christology depicted in the Fourth Gospel.
In times of division among believers, I couldn’t think on a happier ending for this captivating research on the reality behind those canonical texts. ( )

At times insightful, but must be read with caution as it offers heterodox and heretical commentary through the abuse of the historical critical method.