Loading...Since Paul’s letter of 1 Corinthians is so central to the modern study of Paul, most of the scholarly books written about Paul for general audiences will either deal directly with it or be in part based on it.
I devote a fuller discussion of 1 Corinthians in my textbook, Bart Ehrman and Hugo Mendez, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 8th ed. (Oxford University Press, 2024), ch. 20. That’s a good place to start for a fuller exposition of what I have given here in my nutshell posts. If you have an earlier edition of the book, it will be pretty much the same, except for the expanded bibliography.
Here is an annotated bibliography of books that will deal with 1 Corinthians, most of them as part of their overall discussion of Paul and his letters. For direct discussion of 1 Corinthians in particular, see especially the book by Dale Martin (The Corinthian Body) and the two commentaries.
******************************
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I’ve been using your New Testament textbook as a go-to reference—it’s all-encompassing and really accessible, so I keep it close at hand. I’m curious, when you teach 1 Corinthians, do people tend to focus more on the theological questions Paul raises—like resurrection and spiritual gifts—or are they more drawn to the social and cultural dynamics of the Corinthian church?
Also, I’m using the 6th edition of your textbook. What would you say are the biggest changes or improvements in the 8th edition? Were there any new insights or developments in the field that led you to update or expand certain sections?
1 Corinthians: Social and cultural dynamics, by far. The 8th edition was edited mainly by my colleague Hugo Mendez, who made a number of small improvements but especially rewrote completely the discussoinso of the Synoptic Problem and of John (he and I doh’t agree on all that!), and he beefed up the bibliographies, among other things adding commentaries to them — very helpful!
Dr. Ehrman,
On a different topic, wouldn’t every
”wicked” person who owned a boat
also have had a good chance to survive
the Noah’s flood?
Too many waves and nothing to eat.
First of all thanks for the bibliography.
You have stated that you do not think Paul would have known Aramaic. I’m suprised because I suppose I just assumed that as an educated Jew Paul would have at least been able to speak it even if he could not write it. What convinces you?
We know that Jews from the Diaspora as a rule did not speak ARamaic from all the references to and writings by them. It may seem weird, but not many Jews in the U.S., Canada, or the UK speak Hebrew today. Similar thing.
Do we have any evidence that early Christians often disregarded statements attributed to Paul because he was not Jesus, God, or Moses, and therefore was not necessarily inspired?
The interisting thing about Paul’s letters is that he appears to have as many Christian enemies as friends, so I’d say a lot of people disregarded him!
Dr Ehrman Can I suggest making it available on Kindle your two books:
A New Testament a Historical Introduction to the Early Christians, and also
The Bible A Historical and Literary Introduction. I think you will get more readers.
Thank you
Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, I have no say in these things. I write the books and the publishers market them and arrange audio deals. They may be available in some audible form or another — I’ve never looked!
Dr. Ehrman,
Acknowledged as authentic since 95 CE by Clement of Rome, is 1 Cor. the single best attested to of Paul’s undisputed letters?
I’m not quite sure what that would mean. It would be the earliest. (In part because Paul acknowledges it in 2 Corinthians)
I always found 1 Corinthians 15: 3-4 the most interesting of Paul’s. He states Jesus was the predicted messiah to die for the sins of the world and be resurrected 3 days later as stated in the Old Testament.
What makes it so interesting is there is no mention of the messiah (or anyone) dying and being resurrected back to life 3 days later in the Old Testament but yet Paul still wrote it. Why? He surely knew this wasn’t written or spoken of by Old Testament prophets.
Is Paul saying Jesus told him this or was it from Jesus disciples?
Apparently the apostles before him.
In discussions of the Resurrection, I find no consideration of the fact that accounts of post-Crucifixion encounters often say that Jesus was not recognized at first. Is the lack of recognition because the encounter was not anticipated? I can see a friend in an airport not expecting the friend to be there, but still I immediately recognize the friend. Or it does it say something about the form of the Resurrected Jesus being different from the form that was crucified, perhaps a reflection of the idea that there are different forms of physical matter?
I discuss this in my recent course The Other Doubting Thomases. You can check it out at my website.