(14 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...I continue now in my thread of providing “nutshell” overviews of each of the books of the New Testament by moving on to one of the favorite Pauline letters for many readers, Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians.
In 1 Corinthians Paul deals with a number of ethical issues confronting the Christian community. Among its many gems is one of the favorite passages of the entire Bible, the “love” chapter of 1 Corinthians 13, which has been read at roughly 99.9% of all weddings in the history of humanity. One of the big surprises of actually studying the book is that what this chapter is not discussing anything about a wedded couple having many years of marital bliss. In fact, it’s not about marriage but, well, using one’s spiritual gifts in the church. Go figure.
1 Corinthians is Paul’s second longest surviving letter (next to Romans) and is difficult to summarize briefly, in part because it deals with so many issues, one-by-one. Have you read it? Ever think about it? If not, no problem. Keep reading! If so, try to summarize it in one sentence of fifty words. I’ve never tried myself, but here’s my determined first attempt:
In First Corinthians Paul addresses numerous problems that have risen among his gentile converts in Corinth: infighting, division, sexual immorality, chaotic worship services, whether women must wear head coverings in church, if Christians can eat meat offered to idols, and a major theological problem: the future resurrection of the dead.
Now I will try to unpack the book a bit further, in a somewhat larger nutshell.
1 Corinthians is not the first correspondence Paul had had with his former pagan converts in Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 5:9 he mentions an earlier letter he had sent and in 1 Corinthians 7:1 refers to a letter they had written to him.
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!
Thank you Dr Ehrman. Chapter 6 of 1 Cor, where Paul effectively says that the Church should police itself, will ultimately lead to the appalling situation we have today with the cover up of child abuse etc.
Yes. Plus. Other churches who have crimes on their books
No, rather, that would be a lack of policing itself.
That’s a very good point, Geoff
Bart, what should we understand by “exousia” in I Cor 11.10?
Ah, right. A woman is to have an “authority” (exousia) on her head. It’s sometimes translated “veil” though it clearly does not mean veil, per se. Exousia means something like “power” “control” or “authority” — usually the last, I suppose, but “authority” can be an abstract authority (“I have authority to do this”) or some person/entity that yields that abstraction (“I got in trouble with the authorities”) . It could mean something like “symbol of authority,” though that doesn’t seem strong enough.
The matter is complicated by the even more famous problem of the same sentence, that Paul explains that the woman needs an authority on her head “because of the angels.” Uh, what? What’s it mean? Two main lines of thought are that he means wicked angels, as in Genesis 6, who need to be averted from seducing teh women by some contary power (or her beauty needs to be hidden from them by a veil?) or the good angels, used by God to create and structure the world and its hierarchies (so the veil shows she is under the authority of her husband, as ordained by God).
As you can imagine, there are lots of debates and almost no certainties on this one.
“Some women in Corinth are removing their veils in church”
Was it normal for Jewish woman and pagan woman to wear veils in church in the first century?
Did most 1st century women keep their hair completely covered all the time?
Yes. And I don’t know if some hair was allowed to show or not.
“Paul is incensed by the division within the church body. Most interesting, he does not urge everyone to follow the leaders who appeal to his own authority. ”
But it seems that Paul insists on everyone in the church following what he says since he is the only one with the truth, correct?
That’s right. But the church itself has no internal leaders or hierarchical organization.
Was the resurrection of the dead an universal belief among Jews in the first century prior to Jesus and Paul? If not, how widespread was it as far as we can tell?
It appears to have been reasonably widely held, but not universally. The Sadducees famously opposed it, e.g. It’s hard to know what most peole thought.
As usual, you think and write so clearly. My Big question is what evidence, source, or authority did Paul use to support his views in these seven areas? Unlike us, he had no Gospels to quote, and he never actually met the human Jesus. So, did Paul think that the Resurrected Jesus or the Holy Spirit guided and directed all of his views about these matters? If so, how does Paul then argue with others who might claim the same evidence for different views?
He ultimately thought that based on the revelatoin he had at his conversion, his possible revelations since, his understanding of the Jewish Scriptures, and his god-given powers of logic and good sense, he knew what needed to be done. Kinda like many religious leaders today.
In 1 Cor, there are places where it seems like Paul may be suggesting that there are basic teachings which are given to the uninitiated, and secret or “mystery” teachings only suitable for more “mature” members. I have in mind a few passages from chapter 2:
“When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (2:1-2).
“Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden” (2:6-7).
“Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (2:14).
Are these indeed references to secret teachings or levels of initiation like we see in various mystery religions, and if so, do we have any sense of what those secret teachings might have been? Or is there another interpretation that makes more sense?
2:1-2 seem less like teachings only for initiates (as in the mystery religions) and more like information Paul could give as his readers mature in their faith. The other statements are referring to public information, that faith in Christ reveals the truth that seeems foolish to outsiders.
Not long ago, I did a small project marking any allusions or quotations of the New and Old Testament in the works of the Apostolic Fathers (specifically Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius), to see how early these books are attested. I noticed a few interesting things: firstly, most relevant to this article,
1 Corinthians was by far the most widely quoted book – there’s at least one usage of it by Polycarp, 10 or more in Ignatius’ epistles, and too many to count in 1 Clement (understandably – he, too, wrote to the church in Corinth). Secondly, Ephesians, which is often considered to be later pseudepigrapha, is quoted by all 3 Apostolic Fathers whose writing survives today (so excluding Papias and Quadratus). And finally, Philippians, Mark and Revelation are completely omitted from all of these works, and there are no allusions that I can find which clearly attests these three important works. I understand that the authorship of 1 Clement, the Ignatian Epistles, and Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians are all under dispute, and they may be written later, but that makes the omissions even more unusual.
I’ll try not to flood you with questions, since I’ve already overflowed into a second comment, but here’s two that have been nagging at me for a while.
Firstly, Matthew and Luke are believed to descend from Mark, and they’re both widely used by the earliest church fathers. If that’s the case, why is Mark seemingly absent from their work? Could this suggest that Mark was not publicly circulated, or at least not widely circulated, until much later than 70? Our earliest fragment of Mark, Papyrus 37, seems to be late 2nd or early 3rd century, which may also support this.
Secondly, do these findings on Paul’s epistles challenge the notion (which might be scholarly consensus? I’m not sure, but I see it often) that Paul’s authentic epistles circulated as a collection, while the inauthentic epistles were added to a later “edition” of this collection? Philippians is authentic but unused, Ephesians is likely a forgery but widely used, 1 Corinthians is used far more than anything else and may have circulated independently (I’ve heard this about Romans, as well), etc.
1. It probably means that Christian authors who quoted the more popular longer Gospels saw no need to quote the other — that remains true for centuries, even when Mark was in the same codices as the others and everywhere accepted as ascripture.
2. The incidental and accidental survivals of Christian writings from the first part of the second century can’t tell us how widely certain books were used at the time. We can tell what probalby WAS used but not what probably was not. The first time we know of a distinct and specific collection of books is Marcion, ca. 140 CE, and he has all of the canonical ones withoug hthat Pastorals. My sense is that these were the books available to him in Sinope in, say, the 120s, but it’s not possible really to know. (As an example, it would be dead easy to collect, say, 100 of my blog posts and find that I never quote 2 Corinthians, Colossians, or Titus — but it wouldn’t necessarily mean I didn’t know they were in the NT)
I do not understand the Greek text of 1 Corinthians 11:28 as supporting the literal practice of Eucharist ritual.
ουτως adverb of manner, describes the way in which something is done.
There’s two clauses in the verse separated by ουτως.
The first clause describes what it means to do the Lord’s Supper. (But let man examine his “self” (the past life of events and consequences as it affects the present.)
The second clause describes what it is metaphorically.
The Lord’s Supper was self examination and was never meant to be a literal Eucharist ritual as practiced by the Catholic Church.
The Lord’s Supper was examining the self to decide if it is deserving of death. The Catholic Church then replaced that with Confession.
Paul then goes on to metaphorically speaks of eating and drinking as that period of self examination, blames the literal practices of Eucharist rituals for causing illness and death,
advices them to tarry:take their sweet time during that time of self examination, and please eat real food at home before coming to church.
I’m not sure what you mean by “literal” practice? The meal was certainly literally eaten in Corinth. But it was not a mass that entailed transubstantiation, for example. Baptists literally take communion as well as Catholics.
Greeting Bart! I really enjoyed this post, especially after reading The New Testament by Bart Ehrman. Can you explain Paul’s physical weakness and why was he a poor speaker?
Humbly Randolah
Oh boy I wish we knew! I’d say all we know is that he agrees with his opponents that he is physically not in great shape and either has a speech impediment or simply is not good on his feet, even though he can write one mean letter….
“Because of the angels” seems to show Paul is taking ideas from the Enochic literature no? Are there other instances of him doing so?
Nothing specific. But since the Enochic literature itself is based on Genesis 6 and since what survives of the Enochic literature is almost certainly not the only Jewish literature that reflected on Genesis 6 (most Jewish literature from the period, of course, is lost), we can’t really saw whether Paul is free-thinking here, basing his views on general views floating around, other written texts, or the Book of the Watchers in particular.
I look forward to more of your thoughts on the meat-eating controversy. At the end of his discussion Paul says, “Do not offend Jews or Greeks, or the church of God…” And yet in Galatians isn’t he criticizing Peter (Cephas) for trying not to offend the Jerusalem Christians? Tricky issue! Glad it’s no longer an issue today (or is it?).
Some folk have compared it to alcohol consumption….
Dr. Ehrman,
Why does Paul think the current body is important, since we will ultimately have them transformed anyway?
Because God created it and it is the means by which people serve him and others; Paul takes as “proof” that it matters precisely in the fact that God will transform it (rather than get rid of it).
In 1Cor 10:25 Paul wrote “Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question” but then in verse 28 he says “But if someone says to you “This has been offered in sacrifice” then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you”. So is he saying that it is OK to eat meat which might have been offered to an idol, as long as you are not seen doing so by another member of the church who thinks it is wrong?
It kinda seems that way. But he then says that eating it would be participating in demon worship — so it’s hard to nail him daown.
Dr. Ehrman,
Even some critical scholars use Acts at least in part to help obtain a dating system for Paul’s letters, however if we don’t want to use Acts, (since many claim that it was written later and is not reliable)…Can we still make the general case that Paul wrote his letters within Jesus own generation since Paul meets directly with Jesus’ own brother James?
Yup, absolutely.
Concerning Paul’s comments about divisions in the Church. It seems he may have known what was coming and was trying to head it off. As I read your comments, his concerns sound very much what the church is like today. Some believing they have the answers and are right. Everyone else must be wrong and should be punished. These issues are historical in the Church. If Paul was incensed in the first century, I can’t imagine what adjective you would use to describe Paul’s emotions today.
Professor Ehrman, I’ve always read 1 Corinthians 15 as addressing the belief that there was no resurrection at all (like the Sadducees’ belief) not that the dead have already been raised or that there has been some spiritual or figurative resurrection. Paul seems to say so explicitly in 1 Cor 15:12, 13, and 29.
15:12-13 “…how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised…”
15:29 “…If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?”
What are the keys to reading 1 Cor 15 as addressing the belief some spiritual resurrection has already occurred? Is there something else in the chapter people overlook or something else in the letter itself?
Yes, it might seem that way. For Paul, to think that bodies will not be raised would mean that there “is no resurrectoin” (since that’s what hte term normally meant) evne if his opponents said, Yes there is a resurrection, but it has already happened to us spiritually. That is what Paul is mocking in 1 Cor. 4:8; the opening exclamations “”already you have been kings” almost certainly has to be read as mockery of their views, given his response “I wish it were true!”
Great summary; neutral, objective, and informative!
This is a different topic but… I’ve just read Marko Marina’s post from this week’s email discussing why Jesus was crucified. Both of you have discussed that the belief that Jews killed Jesus is incorrect. I have no skin in this game, but if the Jews turned Jesus over to the Romans as a criminal or trouble maker, wouldn’t they have known exactly what would be done to him?? In some way, does this make the community responsible for the outcome?
I don’t think if I told the police about a criminal and he received the death sentence that people would normally say that I “killed him”?? Or would we say that “the agnostics killed him” or the “People of Durham killed him”? In any event, I don’t think we know historically what the Jewish leaders had in mind…
Quick question Ehrman:
Is there anywhere in the New Testament (and aproychal works) that tell us another messenger is coming — this doesn’t directly have to be Mohamed—?
I suppose teh only one still coming for parts of the NT (2 THess; Rev) is the antichrist/beast figure.
Are you sure Paul is prohibiting prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6? Paul condemns sexual immorality, but who says that prostitution is sexual immorality?
Paul says he does not unite a member of Christ with a prostitute, but what if he were a prostitute? Then he would have the ability to unite pagans with Christ through his own body. It seems that the charitable option for Paul is to open his door and his bed to potential catechumens.
Paul never prohibits prostitution. And yes, if you could make someone one with Christ by having sex with them, that could indeed lead to an interesting evangelistic strategy!
Dr. Ehrman,
1 Cor 3:10-15 speaks of a judgment by fire, but v. 15 says that if someone suffers loss (his/her works are burned up), that person will still be saved. Is this teaching universalism? purgatory? eternal security?
Thanks!
It seems to be saying that there are Christians who are advancing false teachings in order to establish the “structure” /”building” of the Christian church, and that structure will not in fact survive, but they themeselves, as Christisns, will be saved. Purgatory doesn’t come along until the 12th century. The verse could be taken to be a kind of universalism, but it’s only referring to other (problematic) apostolic teachers, not those who are not followers of Jesus.