(18 votes, average: 4.94 out of 5)
Loading...To explain why the Holy Spirit was so central to the earliest Christian communities we know about, we have to explore what we can know about earliest churches. The ones we know best about are those associated with Paul, since Paul is our earliest Christian author, and in his letters he refers to church activities. Nowhere is that more true than in the two-letter correspondence with the Corinthians.
1 and 2 Corinthians gives us a lot to go on when we want to know what this particular Christian community was like – that is, how it did as a distinct and coherent religious group in the midst of its wider society, what activities it engaged in as a group, how it was organized, how it worshiped, and so on. We know so much about such issues because the community was riddled with problems. Paul wrote his letters to address the problems, and so by looking carefully at what he wrote, we can understand not only what he thought was going wrong in the church but also what was actually happening and – in his view, supposed to happen – in them.
Now that I have looked, I realize I have not written much on the blog about these two letters over the years. But there’s a lot to say. To set up my discussion of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians, I need to give some introductory comments on the church in Corinth in general. That in itself will take a few posts, after which I’ll return to the question of the larger thread, how the Spirit rose to such importance in the Christian church that it eventually was granted a place in the Trinity; to answer that we will need to look at the key passages in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
Here is the overview I give
The rest of this post is for blog members only. You too could be among this elite corps of insiders. Joining is easy and it costs little; and every penny of your small fee goest to charity! Click here for membership options
LOL … ” Some of the men in the congregation had been frequenting prostitutes and didn’t see why this should be a problem; one of them was sleeping with his stepmother. And this is the community that Paul addresses as the “saints who are in Corinth” (1:2). >>One wonders what the Corinthian sinners looked like<<" lol….
“One wonders what the Corinthian sinners looked like”
Probably a sweet toga, a chalice full of delicious wine in one hand and a nice Scythian slave in the other. My guess anyway.
Do you think Paul v. the Corinthians (district court of course) represented the fundamental difference between Hellenistic Greek thought and Jewish apocalyptic thought? It would seem for Paul the spirit or “soul” of every human (nephesh) was thought of as an essential component of the body in order to be a whole, living being – hence Paul’s kerygma of bodily resurrection. But to the Greeks at Corinth, however, the soma was regarded as a “tomb” (sema) that imprisoned the soul (the rational mind or psyche). It would seem unlike Paul, the Greeks saw “flesh” and “spirit” as dichotomous existences where the body is clearly inferior to the spirit. I can see how his 1st letter corrects this interpretation, but why on earth would they buy it? The Greeks were horrified of such notions as a literal resurrection of the corpse. It would be interesting to see what trajectory would have occurred without the temple destruction, thus leaving the communities closest to Jesus as true arbiters throughout the Diaspora.
In rough terms, yes. I’d be careful about generalizing about either Hellenistic thought or Jewish apocalypticism — but yes, that’s pretty much what is going on….
do scholars find any problems with the verse below?
why in his letters he seems to be making a separation between jew and gentile
“28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
Problems? I’m not sure what you mean. Scholars usually think of this as an extremely important verse for understanding Paul. No one who has faith in Christ is superior to anyone else before God. Jew and Gentiles, Men and Women, Slaves and Free — all are equal before God through Christ.
“Jew and Gentiles, Men and Women, Slaves and Free — all are equal before God through Christ.Jew and Gentiles, Men and Women, Slaves and Free — all are equal before God through Christ.”
why then did he preach to the jews first and after he was rejectted, he ran of to gentiles?
cllearly in his mind he is making a distinction…
Only in Acts does he do that. He himself never mentions that as a missionary strategy or indicates that he went to gentiles only after being rejected by Jews. On the contrary, he insists that he took his gospel just to gentiles and allowed others to go to Jews. In any event, Galatians is not referring to missinoary strategy or preaching priorities,, but to the equality of all people in Christ — that is, once they were converted.
okay, so it is only after conversion, prior to conversion there is jew and gentile?
For Paul? Prior to conversion he thoguht that Jesus’ death made no difference to *anyone’s* salvation….
Dear Dr Ehrman,
I would love to hear your thoughts about what Christianity would be like if the only sacred writings available to them were the old testament plus just the letters that were actually written by Paul… no forgeries, no gospels… just those 7 or 8 letters or however many there were.
I”d say it’s impossible to know; my reason is that no one could logically deduce the various ways Christianity *did* develop from the books that we know they had. But if the OT and Paul were the entire canon, one would wonder what status the life and teachings of Jesus would hae had in the religion.
“Different members of the community would speak prophecies and make proclamations in languages that no one else (including themselves) knew, trying to surpass one another in demonstrating their abilities to speak in divinely inspired tongues.”
1. This was likely gibberish, right?
2. Did the idea of speaking in tongues start here and then make it all the way to the current day?!?
1. My view? Absolutely. 2. It turns out it’s a phenomenon in a wide range of religions, not just Christianity. Probably a result of thinking that revelations come from a different realm beyond the human?
It would be really hard to fact-check or criticize a teaching or prophecy made in a language no one knew. Pretty handy.
Very handy. I think people forget – or downplay – the fact that humans are humans are *human*. The similarities between us today and our kin thousands of years ago are much greater than our differences; Our hormones, instincts, inner feelings/emotions – and our never-ending ability to “tell stories” – are still with us much the same as then. We constantly did and constantly do, tell stories to elevate ourselves in the eyes of our peers. And we quote others but pretend we initiated that quote, and we write what others wrote as though it’s new. 2021BCE = 100CE = 2021CE in more ways than many think, I suspect.
I’m not trying to be snarky but given some notable recent scandals in various Christian communities and denominations, and given what we know about the history of the church, and based on my own personal experiences with a number of local Christians– it seems that Corinth set the standard. Not much has really changed, has it? I’ve heard so many times, statements on the order of: “Oh, I know I’m a terrible and awful sinner, but aren’t we all? Yep, I’m a hypocrite and I’ve cheated and harassed the people who work for me, and run around on my wife, and I’ve done terrible things to my kids, but THANK GOD I’M SAVED!” Thank you Jesus.
Thats the point….you take the average of your local community that has no standards. Then you make some of them Christian with objective standards. Now all of a sudden some of the worst members of society have a standard to work toward—the standard of Jesus himself….all the non-chrisitians are safe…they have no standards still.. So the Christian community on average will be more moral than the community at large.
That’s a stretch….
Hi Bart, I have an unrelated question. I believe I’ve heard you say that you think that Jesus in some sense predicted the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. I was wondering what your reasons are for thinking so. I’m assuming two reasons are that it fits the criteria of multiple attestation and contextual credibility (his apocalyptic message). Are these your reasons for thinking so? And /or Do you have any other reasons for thinking so? Thanks.
YEs, those are the main reasons. It is extremely widely attested in numerous strands of the tradition, and is attested as a view that others of his time held to as well….
In his recent book “The Immortality Key” Brian C. Muraresku points out that Paul said some of the Corinthians “sleep,” i.e. are dead, because of how they were improperly taking the Lord’s Supper. He suggests that the early Christians like other ancient religions spiked their wine with psychoactive substances to enhance the transcendent experience, so some of the congregation may have been overdosing, or perhaps concocting a bad mixture. Interesting idea, although it needs more evidence to support it.
Off the wall 1 Corinthians 7 greek question:
Paul essentially says in v8 that he is either “A-gamois” or “cherais”… Dr E (vocative), was Paul … “elusin” from a wife?? Lol my greek is horrible. Was Paul a widower? Was he divorced?
You know… lots has been made about Paul’s seemingly negative attitude toward women. Is it … possible… that he suffered from heartburn, to coin a phrase?
It’s usually thought that either he was celibate all along or a widower; nothing would suggest that he’s divorced, certainly not since becoming a follower of Jesus, given what he says in 1 Cor. My sense is that he was a life-long celibate, like other highly religious apocalyptic Jews we know about.
In the case of Paul, everything seems peculiar. He himself was peculiar. His communities that did not survive because they were managed by peculiar letters were peculiar. His doctrine of the resurrection is peculiar, forgotten immediately after his death and miraculously reborn some 60 years later.
Even this public resurrection of Paul’s letters is quite peculiar. Finding all letters by one person is not peculiar, but downright miraculous.
And all this almost certainly happened, because the confirmation is the patristic works, the authenticity and dating of which we can say that they are almost certainly established correctly.
However, if we move this whole story forward 60 years and consider this literature as a product of the second century, it somehow seems more real and less peculiar.
Why would moving it to the 2nd century make more sense? And does anyone actually think these remaining letters were all the letters?
Paul’s original letters from the 40s and 50s CE were externally edited and then included in a collection known as the Pauline Corpus. Apart from this collection, which was established around 100 CE, no one else has found any genuine Paul letter. The letters were virtually irrelevant since Paul’s death for 80 (!) Yyears, and suddenly became authoritative around 140 CE.
Well, this is the consensus built on the premises of the texts of the letters themselves – that they are linguistically and theologically coherent and that they contain some references to the realities of the 50s CE. The consensus is confirmed by rare quotations from letters in supposedly original patristic works dated to the beginning of the second century. Both the originality and dating of these patristic works are the subject of constant dispute.
Better and simpler is to explain that Paul’s letters are imaginary testimony of an invented tradition. It was invented by the one who needed it at a time when it was needed, i.e. in the 2nd century.
I don’t believe there is a consensus that Paul’s entire corpus is linguistically and theologically uniform. Even supposing that the 7 uncontested letters are internally consistent, the contested letters are striking different from those seven in language, style and subject matter. That definitely complicates the theory the “Paul” is an imaginary figure.
Bart: “It turns out [speaking in tongues] is a phenomenon in a wide range of religions, not just Christianity. Probably a result of thinking that revelations come from a different realm beyond the human?”
What’s the best scholarly source on this phenomenon in earlier, non-Christian religious practice?
I don’t know! Many years ago Dale Martin wrote an article talking about glossalalia from a cross-cultural perspetdive, and I can’t remember if he references it in The Corinthian Body (or if it came after that); and I don’t know if he deals with pre-Xn practices or only later non-Xn ones. Back in the 50’s L. Carlyle May wrote an article that mentions some pre-Xn examples (Herodotus, etc. I suppose the Sibyl in Aeneid 6). But it’s not something I’m up on. If you find something that looks authoritativbe and recent, let me / us know!
Thanks! Here’s a couple of nice quotations:
“The more mysterious and incomprehensible these formulas were, the greater their power was thought to be.”
– L. Carlyle May
https://sciencedocbox.com/Paranormal_Phenomena/84364754-E-words-has-long-been-of-interest-to-students-of-religion-the-books-of-cutten.html
“Having brandished these threats they then go on to add incomprehensible, incoherent, and utterly obscure utterances, the meaning of which no intelligent person could discover: for they are meaningless and nonsensical, and give a chance for any fool or sorcerer to take the words in whatever sense he likes.”
– Celsus, as quoted first by Origen (Contra Celsum 7.10) and subsequently by Dale Martin on Page 91 of The Corinthian Body.
http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/origenes/cc/gr/07.htm
Prof Ehrman,
On the subject of speaking in strange tongues. As you pointed out, this was a well known phenomenon in other religions where people who were believed to be under some divine influence spoke in an unknown or strange tongue. Viewing it in the context of its emergence in Christianity.
Q1. Was this a shared or known experience in Judaism as well and probably influenced Christianity?
Q2. If it isn’t of a Jewish influence, could it have been an influence from the then Greek/ Pagan world?
1. Not that we know of; 2. Possibly. There are recorded instances of ecstatic prophecies in other languages, as far back as Herodotus.
Many years ago when I was an undergraduate in college, I had a roommate who had belonged to a small church whose congregants spoke in tongues and believed speaking in tongues was a sign they were saved. They also believed once saved always saved. He related he became disenchanted with the church but learned their pattern for speaking he tongues. (I believe the fact he was a musician greatly aided him in this.) When he approached the minister and told he the minister he was leaving the church because he no longer believed the doctrine that was being taught, the minister told my roommate it was because my roommate had not been saved. In response my roommate spoke in tongues and walked out, leaving the minister confused.
What is the proof that Paul was indeed a persecutor of Christians? Could have this been used as a justification just to show the strength of faith?
Understanding that Paul brought Christianity to non-Jews, why is he considered the first to do that when he is addressing the church in Rome that he did not establish?
He himself appears to be ashamed of it when he mentions it; it is a dominant theme of the one account written about his life (Acts; which is unreliable in details but gets a lot of the big pictures right); it was known widely among Paul’s followrs. So I can’t think of a good reason to doubt it.
Romans was written at the end of his life, after he was engaged in a gentile mission for nearly 30 years. There were probably others like him converting gentiles; but it’s not clear tere were other who realized that these gentiles did not need to convert to become Jews.