(15 votes, average: 4.87 out of 5)
Loading...
I have been discussing how Paul established the church in Corinth; this is important information for anyone interested in knowing what kinds of problems arose in the church — some of them rather amazing, for a group Paul calls “the saints”! Here is how I discuss Paul’s message in my textbook on the New Testament:
******************************
During their stay in Corinth, Paul and his companions appear to have converted a sizable number (dozens?) of pagans to the faith. The book of Acts indicates that they spent a year and a half there. Paul himself makes no clear statement concerning the length of his stay, but there are indications throughout his letter that the Christians in Corinth, or at least some of them, had an unusually sophisticated understanding of the faith. Indeed, some of the Corinthians had so much knowledge of their faith that they took Paul’s gospel simply as a starting point and developed their views in vastly different directions.
What can we say about the message that Paul originally preached to these people? As elsewhere (see 1 Thess. 1:9-10), he evidently instructed them in the need to worship the one true God and to await his Son from heaven. As we will see, however, the second part of this message (“to await his Son”) made significantly less impact on the converts in Corinth than in other Pauline churches.
It is difficult to know exactly what else he taught these people. It does appear, however, that Paul devoted little if any effort to narrating tales about what Jesus said and did during his public ministry, as was probably true for his other churches as well. He does
If Paul didn’t talk about Jesus’ life, teachings, and miracles — what *did* he say to convert people? Join the blog and you’ll get access to my answer, and to five posts on topics related to early Christianity each and every week! Click here for membership options
Could the “saints who are in Corinth” also have been meant sarcastically?
It doesn’t seem to be! He isn’t using it in an ethical sense but in the sense that this is the community that has been “set apart” for God as God’s people. Even if they don’t act like….
Hi Bart, do you think Paul in 1 Corinthians 5.5,13 indicated the establishment of Church judicial procedures which would culminate in the destruction of the flesh and salvation of the souls of many in the middle ages, just like the Catholic Inquisition claimed? Do you think he was received correctly by the established orthodoxy on this matter?
No, I don’t think he had anything like that on his mind.
Do we have any records of the 1st Century conversion experience from the convertee’s side?
E.g., “I was a pagan until Paul (or someone else) came along and persuaded me to convert and this is what it was like.”
The only writings we have from the first century are in teh New Testament, and the only author of the NT who mentions his own conversion is Paul. So unfortunately, the answer is no…
What do you think Paul actually “saw” on the road to Damascus? He was arresting Jesus followers. Was his brain so enamered with Jesus that he had a dream about him? And, Paul, not understanding the science of dreams, interpretated that Jesus breath had reanimated his body?
We don’t have enough information to make a judgment. He had some kind of visionary experience and he interpreted it as an encounter with Christ himself. Beyond that it’s almost entirely speculation.
“For Paul himself, the Corinthians’ notion that they were already enjoying an exalted status couldn’t be further from the truth.”
Ironically, Paul was the one who was furthest from the truth as Christ did not return in their lifetimes.
At some point, do you think the Corinthians felt this way?
I wish we knew.
Mr. Ehrman, it is the standard christian view that Jesus died for our sins. I assume you shared that view, back when you were a christian. I wonder: how do you think of this particular view now as an agnostic atheist?
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. Are you asking what I think about the view as a theological truth? I don’t believe in God so I don’t think that Jesus’ death paid for sins that I committed against God, in order to make me right with God, no.
So Paul’s gentile converts don’t have to become Jews but they do need enough knowledge about the Jewish context to make the teachings intelligible, while being taught that many of their pagan ideas must be abandoned. Jeepers what could possibly go wrong?
I suppose Paul thought he had taught them clearly enough what they had to do they just didn’t “get it.”
Speaking of Corinthians, we spoke about Cor 13, the speech to love and how everyone has it at their weddings. And then we thought of the *worst* Paul quotes to have at your wedding, and I came up with “Slaves obey your masters”. Do you have a worse quote off the top of your head?
Women must be silent in the churches; if they want to learn, ask their husbands at home….
Don’t you think that verse is a latter addition?
Yes I do.
Good point Bart.
– but that does prompt a question; what is your assessment of the argument that these verses (I Corinithians 14 34-35) could be an interpolated gloss into the text at this point?
since:
a. they are obelised as a spurious addition in Codex Vaticanus.
b. in the Western text they are commonly found after verse 40.
c. in Codex Fuldensis they are missing altogether (though no surviving Greek manuscript lacks them).
I am not aware of any patristic commentator who questions these verses as genuinely from Paul; but then again, I am not aware of any patristic commentator who viewed with favour the participation of women in public worship; so maybe that was to be expected.
Yes, I think they are indeed an interpolation. BUT, they are in the Bible nonetheless….
Thanks Bart, I value your judgement on this point. Personally, I have been convinced by Philip Payne’s arguments; but a number of scholars whose opinion I respect clearly do not agree:
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2017/09/more-payne-no-gain-on-distigmai.html
And I realise my own assessment may be affected by a degree of ‘rose-tinting’ in my spectacles. I would certainly be happier to have these words identified as an later interpolation into Paul’s argument to the Corinthians at this point.
But I also agree entirely with your second sentence. All the evidence suggests that these verses have been in the scriptural text as it has been read in churches, from the period when Paul’s letters first came to be counted as scripture.
What scripture is Paul referring to? Did the Jewish scriptures speak of a dying and resurrecting Messiah?
Possibly he’s thinking that there are allusions to Jesus’ death in Psalm 22; Isaiah 53; etc; and to his resurrectdoin in Hosea 6:3 and teh book of Jonah (etc.)
Most Jews of Paul’s day would see this as a misinterpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, correct?
All the Jews except those who followed Jesus.
I’ve read those words in 1 Cor. 10:11 so many times before, but until recently I didn’t grasp what they really meant: Paul thought that the end times had come in his time. You see, fundamentalists read these verses to apply to our time as the end times. But how could it be that Paul thought that the end of ages was already in his time if he actually meant OUR times. Thank you Bart and others like you for pointing out this clear fact!
If Paul’s message boiled down to crucified and resurrected and he was trembling with fear because of his lack of wisdom “germane” to the issues at hand should we attach significance to what he said subsequently in his travels to Galatia in particular his use of the descriptor “portrayed” when speaking of the crucifixion? Was he mixing his message? Was his message to the sophisticated Corinthians if similar to to what was conveyed to Galatians confusing them from your vantage because they are understanding Paul differently believing the crucifixion nothing more than a play from his intended message? The Greek word portray would seem to be an everyday term which would give the impression of a painted picture or a dramatic play. Was Paul telling the Corinthians he had no knowledge other than the crucifixion and resurrection and maybe conveying a confusing narrative surrounding the crucifixion and having very limited knowledge about Jesus outside of the crucifixion and resurrection? If one continues reading after 1 Corinthians 2:2 it’s abundantly clear to me Paul is telling us his knowledge is limited and it’s not a problem because he has wisdom better than earthly wisdom.
THe language of “portrayed” involves “word pictures.” Paul described the crucifixion so graphically (not from having seen it, of course) that it was “before their eyes.
Unrelated, but did early Christians see Jesus as a prophet? Did Jews think the Messiah would be a prophet?
A prophet was one who delivered God’s message to his people, and so yes, Jesus was seen as a prophet, and there was a strong line of thinking that the messiah would also fill that roll.
I agree, Dr. Ehrman. Early Christians no doubt saw this dual role. It’s my understanding the Jews however didn’t and many still do not see Jesus as a simultaneous prophet and messiah. They believe I’m told Royal lineage passes through David and Son Solomon and High Priests/ Prophets come to exist through Tribe of Levi and Aaron. You mentioned Paul taught the last supper. I’m assuming he also taught it was here Jesus ate sacred bread which to Jews would have been reserved only for High Priests. And because he ate this bread Jesus was also high priest/prophet. I know there are rabbis on YouTube who argue (more accurately counter argue against Jesus duality. He can’t be both) this and I know some apologists contend this. Your thoughts? Do you think this was Paul’s angle as well?
In the NT, of course, Jesus does pass through the royal line, since he is allegedly the patrilinear descendant of David. In any event, the Passover bread was not reserved for priests; it was part of the annual passover meal (the Seder) and still is.
I feel like I’m jumping rope. Abraham, Moses, Judges, Kings. Where does Melchizedek (Genesis 14) fit in to all of this priestly/kingly lineage? (As in Hebrews 6 “after the order of Melchizedec”) Is this a proper question?
Great question. Melchizedek stands apart from all the lines of Israelite patriarchs, rulers, and priests. There are different views of him as a mysterious figure who just shows up and then disappears in Genesis; Abraham honors him by giving him a tithe. The portrayal in Hebrews 7 is especially intriguing. Melchizedek (literally means King of Righteousness) is taken to be a pre-incarnate Christ who is superior to Abraham, the father of hte Jews, and his descendent Levi, from whom all Jewish priests come. So — in keeping with Hebrews’ theme generally — Christ is superior to all things in Judaism and is a superior priest to even the Jewish high priest. (Melchizedek represents Christ both because of his name, his unusual origin — having no human parents– and the fact that all Jews are subservient to him)
Thanks!
Mix up with the translations of the original words for hell, hellfire, gehenna, grave.
Misinterpretedand mistranslated Bible verses because Gehenna is often confused with the original Hebrew and Greek words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus.
Revelation 20 says hell, after the dead are resurrected, hell (hades) will be cast into the lake of fire. Meaning hell (the grave) will be wiped out of existence after those in hell are resurrected during the 1,000 year reign of Christ
Are these passages reflecting (at least in part) an asceticism which Paul got from the Stoics?
I’m wondering if “saint” is a good translation for 1 Corinthians, since it has connotations of the Catholic Church and canonization and other things Paul wouldn’t know about. What does he mean by “saint” and would a word like “holy” be better?
Swedish Bible has “holy” and “sanctified”, btw.
I’d say “holy” has problems of it’s own…. “Those who are sanctified” doesn’t work well either. What does? Well, nothing that I can think of….
What is the Greek word Paul uses to describe the “saints” of Corinth?
How about “hallowed”? Has a nice olden times ring to it.
It’s the participle of the verb for “to be made holy/set apart/sanctified” used as a substantive (“those who have been made sanctified/holy/set apart) It’s not normally used in an ethical sense. A temple, for example can be sanctified. The word is ἠγιασμένοις – HEGIASMENOU.
Hmmm….really, where were the Jews of Corinth? Where was the synagogue? Certainly Pausanius, despite mentioning statues of Artemis, Dionysus, etc. neither mentions nor so much as hints at either a “Christian meeting house” or a synagogue of the Jews. And this is in the mid-2nd century when the “Church of Corinth” should have been very much a going concern. Would this suggest a marginality of the Christians in the 2nd C? Or what about the Jews who were either thoroughly Hellenized and honored the gods of Greece and Rome, or so totally impoverished as to be unable to support a synagogue of any significance. It would seem the probability of a 1st C Jewish proselytizer finding an established community of synagogue-going Jews in Corinth and then successfully pitching a novel message against both his ancestral faith and the officially-sponsored pagan cults in the city is not great. Is it possible that Paul never strolled into Corinth at all? Interesting that VERY few graves at Hierapolis have epitaphs indicating the interment of Jews (none earlier than the 2nd half of the 2nd C). Fishy…..
I haven’t looked at the archaeological reports on Corinth for many a year, but it was a large / major place. Why would you think there weren’t any Jews there. Certainly Paul was there! And it was a much-frequented place. THere wouldn’t be a Christian meeting house there, of course, since such things didn’t exist in the days of Pausanias.
I am just (and have been for many yrs) trying to square this letter with Acts that doesn’t portray any “mighty deeds” (aside from instantaneous conversions). I wish I had access to a Paul vs Luke interrogation video because someone’s body language is going to reveal deceit. My questioning would go something like, “Paul, you said the “first fruit of Achaia” was Stephanas that supplied you with “that which was lacking.” Can you explain why Luke identified Crispus, “the ruler of the synagogue” (archisynagogos) no less, who he said heard you and immediately embraced the new faith” At this point, I would suspect some eye fluttering, shifting in his chair, etc. “And why then, did the rest of the Jews move “as one accord” in hostility to you?” “Paul, we know Sosthenes botched your trial and placed you in grave danger, but why the change of heart?” (Sosthenes, our brother.” (1 Corinthians 1.1.) Two successive rulers of the synagogue converted to Christianity? You’ve got some Splannig to do….
Mark Koehler: “a 1st C Jewish proselytizer … successfully pitching a novel message against [] his ancestral faith”
No doubt Pauline Christianity evolved into a mass murderous oppressor of Jews, but do you think Paul himself intended his message to be antagonistic against his own ancestral faith?
Many incorrectly point to 1st Thes. 2:13-16 as an indictment. I would say it’s pretty strong language against those who “killed the Lord Jesus”. But…..most would consider it an anti-Semitic interpolation. I think its tough to rehabilitate these verses as authentic. Paul never blames the Jews for the death of Jesus elsewhere. He also never talks about the Jews as if he wasn’t one of them and to the very end he preached the Jews will be saved, not damned. He was dead by the time the “wrath had come upon them to the uttermost,” a phrase that can only mean the destruction of the temple in 70. His’ blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus is simply unprecedented and contrary to all his rhetoric across several letters. Outside this one passage, his attitude is consistent from beginning (Galatians) to end (Romans). So the presumption that “he changed his mind” is possible, but improbable. Yes, Paul criticizes Jews a lot, as he also does Gentiles but that is in no way evidence that he damned them all to destruction for the supposed crime of having killed Jesus.
Yup, it’s much debated. I think it’s authentic; but it’s certainly troubling. “Wrath of God” — I see it as parallel to Romans 1:18-32, only now applied to the Judeans who killed Jesus. I’m always *very* hesitant to call a passage an interpolation unless I see very strong internal evidence (as in 1 Cor. 11:34-35).
Not to belabor the point but…..The passage as we have it says God’s wrath has come upon the Jews “to the uttermost” (eis telos, literally “to the end” / “with finality” or “completely / thoroughly”). Can this be so easily dismissed? Is there anyway to interpret this other than that? It would seem this clause is paired with a verb in the past tense, not the future or present tense: the passage says ἔφθασεν, “has come, has arrived” (with epi, “has come upon”), an aorist indicative, which means a singular event in the past—not a continuing event, nor a future one. Indeed, given the indicative, it means an actual event—as opposed to, say, the subjunctive, which would refer to a hypothetical or potential event. Does it make sense that the author of these lines could just be inserting a quick excuse to damn the Jews by inventing a pagan persecution to spur that digression, so as to steer the letter from its actual subject (the Thessalonians’ ready and faithful conversion from idolatry) to a completely unrelated agenda (damning the Jews)?
Well, it makes sense to me. Paul often gets off track a bit. Eis telos, as you probably know, is much debated; my sense is that Paul thinks all things are now at an end and those who have rejected Jesus are now to pay the price, as he frequently indicates elsewhere.
Mark Koehler: “He was dead by the time the ‘wrath had come upon them to the uttermost’, a phrase that can only mean the destruction of the temple in 70.”
This is one of the reasons why I like Gerd Lüdemann’s early dating of Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians to 41 CE. The imminent threat of Caligula’s statue defiling the Temple in Jerusalem could also be the context for seeing the wrath of God coming upon these particular Judeans who were also hindering Paul’s preaching to the gentiles. An earlier dating of this letter also allows time for Paul’s progressively more developed theology in the later letters.
Whelp…Lüdemann does argue that because vv. 14-16 closely echo pagan critiques of Judaism, this somehow makes it more likely Paul would write these words as we have them. But…I think the opposite is the case. That 14-16 look far more like the words of an Anti-Semitic Gentile than Paul greatly reduces the probability Paul wrote them—and substantially increases the odds they were written by a 2nd century Gentile Christian forger. Conversely, he falsely claims vv. 14-16 closely echo the parable of the wicked tenants that Mark attributes to Jesus (Mark 12:1-12). IMO the evidence overall does not support Jesus ever having taught in parables but indicates these parables were invented by Mark to reify the teachings not of Jesus, but Paul; but I won’t press that point here. Even if we “assume” (without evidence) that this parable actually comes from Jesus (and even “was known to Paul”), what he says about it is not merely not the case, it is conspicuously not the case.
Mark’s parable does equate Jesus with past murdered prophets and predict that those who participate in state murder God will eventually kill (neither anything remarkable to say), but it explicitly says this is about “the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders” and not “the Jews,” who were in fact the hearers and admirers of Jesus that these leaders were “afraid” of. It is precisely by not making this distinction that vv. 14-16 is impossible from the pen of Paul. There is also no mention of “the hindering of the mission” here (he claims it is “implied” in verse 7, but that simply isn’t true), or any other peculiar features of vv. 14-16 (like the Jews “opposing all mankind” or even persecuting missionaries, much less expelling them from Judea). So vv. 14-16 appears to be an evolution beyond, and thus post-dating, Mark 12. It looks far more like sentiments we first find in Luke-Acts, where this condemnation of corrupt leaders has evolved into a condemnation of “the Jews.” There is really much to debunk about the Lüdemann case beyond the scope of this forum. But I love it Dr. Ehrman!
Mark Koehler: “IMO the evidence overall does not support Jesus ever having taught in parables … Even if we “assume” (without evidence) that this parable actually comes from Jesus … vv. 14-16 appears to be an evolution beyond, and thus post-dating … where this condemnation of corrupt leaders has evolved into a condemnation of ‘the Jews’.”
I don’t put much weight on Lüdemann’s argument from the Markan parable and agree that Mk 12,7 does not imply hindering of the Christian mission, but the hinderance of the long-standing prophetic mission is already explicit throughout Mk 12,2-8.
Lüdemann does not claim that the parable comes from Jesus. Rather, “Jews had long ago formulated this charge against themselves … Early Christian prophets edited these traditional charges, put them into Jesus’ mouth and directed them against their own fellow Jews.”
I would strengthen the argument for this text not necessarily being a later interpolation by considering “Jews” here to be a selective group of Judeans, ie, those with authority to kill prophets, hand over Jesus, and to try and prohibit Paul’s mission to the gentiles. He does not implicate all Jews, quite the contrary: ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ … ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων τῶν …
In the court yard of the archaeological museum in Corinth is a small column capital with a fragmentary inscription, enough of which remains that it can be reconstructed as Synagogue of the Hebrews. That doesn’t tell us anything about its date, though.
Dr Ehrman , this trend about the corinthian church begun calling it a ‘peculiar’ church.
But, how peculiar? I think that probably Corinth was no different from other pauline churches
it’s just that we have a better “insight” of their problems due to the length of the letters and their character.
We know that in Phillipi was a quarrel between Euodia and Syntyche but the main purpose of that letter it’s to tell the phillipians about Paul’s imprision, in Galatians the theme was to fight the judaizers and in Thessalonians to adress the issue of the second coming so we don’t know for sure if problems such ones that arouse in Corinth were also common in the rest of the Pauline churches.
Most of their ethical situations are otherwise unattested in Paul’s letters; but it’s certainly true that all of them had problems!
The differences between 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians also include drastic differences of rebukes about the gifts of the Spirit. On one hand, 1 Thess 5:20-21 warns about treating prophets with contempt while still using caution. On the other hand, 1 Cor 12-14 warns about the careless use of spiritual gifts. Thinking about everything you wrote about the differences between the two communities and this makes me laugh a little.
Dr. Ehrman, in his recent book, The immortality key, B. C. Muraresku draws much attention to 1 Corinthians 11:30 and especially the interpretation of “koimoontai”, seemingly meaning that some “even died” from partaking in the Eucharist. Of course, this would fit in with the pagan continuity theory, where the newly emerging Christianity is regarded as another mystery cult around mind-altering substances in the sacramental food and drink. What are your thoughts on this?
The fact that some people died in the church is not very good evidence that they were taking drugs. (!) Koimoontai simply means “fell asleep” and is used as a euphemism for “died” something like fifteen times int he NT. To pick one instance out and say it means, what, “from an overdose”?, seems a bit of a stretch to me.