04. Chapter 4. CORINTH
CHAPTER IV
CORINTH
NONE of the Epistles of St. Paul afford us such ample material for reconstructing the general outlines of Christianity among converts from heathenism as do 1 and 2 Corinthians. There are, of course, many points which will always remain doubtful; but the main difficulty is rather an embarras de richesse, and the danger of obscuring the main picture by too close an attention to details. The investigator has two main tasks: first, to trace the course of the current of incident which flows through the Epistles; and secondly, to discover the various points of view which explain the obvious clash of opinions which gave rise to these incidents. Both tasks can only be accomplished by a series of discussions of small problems, followed by the welding together of the results in the form of general conclusions. The clearest way of proceeding seems to be to divide the discussion into the following divisions:—
I. The foundation of the Church at Corinth.
II. A short preliminary statement of the series of incidents which explain the existence and character of the Epistles.
III. The critical problems connected with these incidents.
IV. The conditions of thought and practice revealed by the Epistles.
I.
THE FOUNDATION OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY AT CORINTH The story of the foundation of the Church in Corinth circles round three points—St. Paul, Apollos, and St. Peter —and can best be told in connection with them.
St. Paul.—In Acts 18:1-18 we have an account of the work of St. Paul at Corinth, which it is possible to supplement in a few details from information in 1 Corinthians. The facts are these: after St. Paul left Athens he went to Corinth and joined the family of Aquila, a Jewish tent-maker—St. Paul’s own trade—who, though originally belonging to the province of Pontus, had settled in Rome, and only left it in consequence of the decree of Claudius banishing all Jews from Rome. Of this decree we know something more from Suetonius, who connects the riots which led to it with “Chrestus.” This must at least mean that a Messianic movement, such as that of the disciples of St. John the Baptist, had reached Rome,and may even mean that Christians had made their way there. It is therefore exceedingly probable either that Aquila and his wife belonged to this type of Messianic Jews, or that they were actually Christians before they met St. Paul. The second alternative is supported by the fact that St. Luke does not state that they were converted by St. Paul’s preaching, though it is of course possible that this is merely an accident. In any case, it was with Aquila that St. Paul lodged. The centre of his preaching was at first, as usual, the synagogue, and he converted Crispus, the “archisynagogue.” This title probably means a rank more or less corresponding to the “Elders” of Protestant churches. But the Jews, as a whole, rejected his teaching, and after a stormy scene he abandoned his preaching in the synagogue and took a room for the purpose next door in the house of Titus Justus, a God-fearer. It must be admitted that he chose a position which was not likely to avoid trouble, though it had the advantage of being easily found by the God-fearer who had previously frequented the synagogue.
St. Paul’s preaching met with considerable success among the Corinthians, and continued, apparently without any serious hindrance, for two years and six months, during which time, as has been shown (pp. 73 ff.), the Epistles to the Thessalonians were written. But then the Jews brought an accusation against St. Paul that παρὰ τὸν νόμον ἀναπείθει οὗτος τοὺς ἀνθρώπους σεβέσθαι τὸν Θεόν. The accusation clearly was that his preaching was illegal, and the illegality seems to be connected with the manner of his preaching rather than with the form of worship referred to. St. Luke says, “he is persuading men contrary to the Law,” not “to worship God contrary to the Law.” Moreover, σεβέσθαι τὸν Θεόν has so usually the meaning “to be a ‘God-fearer,’ ” that it is preferable, if possible, to take it in that way here. If so, we ought to say that the accusation was that “he was making an illegal attempt to persuade men to become God-fearers.” It is, so far as I can discover, impossible to see any Roman law which could be invoked to support this accusation. Perhaps Blass’s suggestion is right, that it is a reference to the privilege conceded by Julius Caesar to Hyrcanus, the son of Alexander, that he and his family should hold all the privileges “according to their own laws.” If so, it is intelligible that Gallio, the Proconsul before whom the matter came, dismissed it with contumely, for this decree had no possible bearing on the question at issue. Gallio regarded the whole affair as a squabble between two sets of Jews, in which he had neither interest nor jurisdiction. After his decision there was a curious incident. “They all took Sosthenes, the archisynagogue, and beat him before the bench.” Who beat him? and why? The Bezan text thinks that the Greeks did so, in which case the scene must be explained as an act of triumphant violence on the part, if not of St. Paul’s Gentile converts, at least of anti-Judaic Greeks, who would scarcely have intervened if they had had no leanings towards St. Paul’s teaching. Such an act would be entirely in accordance with human nature, though scarcely with Christian principles. It was no doubt the latter fact which led the scribes of a few late MSS. to read Ἰουδαῖοι instead of Ἓλληνες, as an explanation of πάντες, and gave rise to the usual exegesis of the common text that Sosthenes was the successor of Crispus, and that the Jews beat him for mismanaging the case. This explanation is almost certainly wrong in so far as it assumes that the archisynagogal office was monarchical, and has otherwise not much to recommend it. The fact is that all we know is that Sosthenes was beaten, but whether by Greeks or Jews, and whether because he was an unsuccessful leader of the prosecution or as a convert of St. Paul, it is impossible to determine. It is, however, intersting to note that a Sosthenes is joined determine. It is, however, interesting to note that a Sosthenes is joined with St. Paul in the opening salutations of 1 Corinthians; this may be purede accident, or it is possible that the Sosthenes who was beaten was already a convert, or, as later legend would have it, that he was afterwards converted by St. Paul.
Other converts of whom we hear are Gaius (1 Corinthians 1:14), with whom St. Paul stayed on a later visit to Corinth (Romans 16:23), Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus, and perhaps Chloe, all of whom play parts of importance in the period of the history of the Church at Corinth immediately after its foundation. To these must be added Erastus the αἰκονόμος of the city (Romans 16:23), and possibly also Lucius, Jason, Sosipater, Quartus, and Tertius (Romans 16:21 ff.).
It will be seen from the above facts that the Corinthian Church was, like all the Pauline Churches, partly Jewish, partly Gentile, with the latter element predominating, and the question discussed on pp. 37 ff. of the position of the God-fearers is here also of the greatest importance. It is extremely probable that this class of Gentiles, interested in and influenced by Judaism, supplied in Corinth as elsewhere the fruitful soil on which the Christian mission was able to sow its seed successfully.
Apollos.—As the “second founder” of the Corinthian Church, Apollos must be named. According to St. Paul himself (1 Corinthians 3:6), he sowed and Apollos watered, and Acts 18:24 ff. gives us the following account of Apollos’ conversion and journey to Achaia, which, in the light of the Epistles to the Corinthians, obviously means Corinth:— “And a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the Spirit, he spake and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: but when Aquila and Priscilla had heard him, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the Way [of God] more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: for he powerfully confuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Messiah was Jesus.” The obvious difficulty of this passage is the apparent contradiction between “teaching the things concerning Jesus” and “knowing only the baptism of John.” For this reason some critics have given up the whole story as hopelessly corrupt, but there is no need for such drastic measures, and the difficulty lies chiefly in the fact that the background of the incident is a state of things which is so different from anything existing now, or indeed ever existing except among Jewish Christians, that it is hard for us to realize it.
What is the most natural meaning of “knowing only the baptism of John”? Surely it is that Apollos had come into contact with the disciples of St. John the Baptist, and had been baptized with his baptism. We are apt to overlook the fact that not all St. John’s disciples became Christians, and that he had a distinct message. His preaching was primarily eschatological: the day of the Lord was at hand, the Messiah was coming, and His kingdom would shortly be established; it was therefore urgently incumbent on every one to repent and to accept the as yet unrevealed Messiah. That was his message: and it would seem from the synoptic Gospels that St. John did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, whose coming he had foretold, until after his public career was finished, for the Baptism of Jesus is in the synoptic Gospels a sign to Jesus, not to St. John, and it is only in the later form of the tradition in the Fourth Gospel that the baptism becomes a sign to St. John and to his disciples. The point in common between the disciples of St. John and Christians was their belief in the immediate coming of the Messiah, and the gospel which both of them preached was “to serve a living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven.” The difference between them was that the disciples of St. John did not identify the coming Messiah with any one who had ever yet appeared, while the Christians identified Him with Jesus, who had been raised from the dead, and had been manifested after His resurrection as that heavenly Being who would carry out the judgment of God, and inaugurate His glorious kingdom. Apollos, then, ought to be regarded as one of the disciples of St. John, who held all the common Christian doctrine of that day, so far as the coming of the Messiah was concerned, but had never heard that there were those who identified this Messiah with the Jesus who had lived and died in Palestine, and had been glorified by God through His resurrection. The common proof both for disciples of St. John and for Christians for their belief in the coming Messiah was the Jewish Scriptures; and to the latter the Messianic passages in these Scriptures were τὰ περὶ Ἰησοῦ, “the things concerning Jesus,” just as they are in Luke 24:27 (“And beginning from Moses and from the Prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself (τὰ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ).” It is of course true that the phrase need not mean this: it might mean “the history of Jesus,” as it does in Luke 24:19. But when a phrase can be shown by the exhibition of parallel passages to be susceptible of two meanings, it is usually the best exegesis to take that which makes the context intelligible. Now, it is certain that with the exegesis in Acts 18:25, that τὰ περὶ Ἰησοῦ means the history of Jesus, the whole story is unintelligible; whereas, it is quite intelligible, if we take the phrase to mean the Messianic passages in the Old Testament, which to the Christian writer of Acts were τὰ περὶ Ἰησοῦ, though, as a matter of fact, Apollos did not, until he met Aquila, know to whom they referred except that he, whoever he was, was the Messiah. With this interpretation the rest of the story presents no difficulties. Apollos came to Ephesus preaching the eschatological gospel of John the Baptist, and Aquila and Priscilla said to him in effect that all that he said was quite true, but that they were able to add to it the important fact that the Messiah was none other than Jesus, who by His resurrection had become a heavenly being, whose glorified nature had been attested by many witnesses. This was an addition to, but in no sense a contradiction of Apollos’ previous teaching; all his arguments remained unchanged, but he was able to add to them “that the Messiah was Jesus.” It must be noted that a lack of appreciation of the real situation has led both to a change in the text, in the Bezan text, and to a mistranslation even in the Revised Version. The Bezan text is that Apollos taught τὸν Ἰησοῦν εἶναι Χριστόν, and the Revisers wrote “that Jesus was the Christ,” but the text is εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, which must be “that the Messiah is Jesus.” The same mistake, for it really is nothing less, on the part of the Revisers may be seen in Acts 18:5, when they render the same formula in the same way: and the reason in both cases is an imperfect appreciation of the part played by the Messianic belief among the Jews. It is of cardinal importance to recognize that the Christology of the first Christians was, in the main, a body of doctrine well known to the Jews and to the God-fearers before the days of Jesus, and that many of them believed in a Christ—a Messiah—before they ever came into contact with a Christian preacher. St. Paul, Apollos, and the other Christian missionaries were to a large extent on ground common to them and their audience when they preached a Messiah, and starting from this generally conceded doctrine, they proceeded to identify this Messiah with Jesus. In this respect they differed absolutely from all modern missionaries, for these usually begin at the other end, and starting from the fact of Jesus argue that He and His history can best be explained in the terms of Messianic doctrine— which is often wholly strange to their hearers. When Apollos had in this way received the completion of his teaching from Aquila, he appears, according to the usual text, to have formed the desire to go and preach in Achaea. According to the Bezan text, he received an invitation to do this from some of the Corinthians who were then in Ephesus. “And certain Corinthians who were staying in Ephesus besought him to come with them and pass into their country, and when he agreed, the Ephesians wrote to the disciples in Corinth to receive him.” Both here and in the ordinary text the word translated “pass into” (διελθεῖν) has the almost technical meaning of making a missionary journey.
Apollos must have had much success in Corinth, for in 1 Corinthians 3:6 St. Paul speaks of him as having watered where he had planted. The information given in Acts and just discussed makes it tolerably certain that his preaching was primarily eschatological; but it is also noteworthy that he came from Alexandria, the headquarters of the allegorical and philosophical Judaism represented by Philo. It is not impossible, therefore, that the tendency to seek for philosophy which St. Paul seems to reprove in the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 1:1-31, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, 1 Corinthians 3:1-23, 1 Corinthians 4:1-21, ought to be connected with the party of Apollos to which he also refers.
Apollos does not, in spite of his success, appear to have stayed very long in Corinth, for when St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, Apollos was with him in Ephesus, and it was doubtful when he would return to Greece, though he intended to do so when a suitable opportunity could be found.
St. Peter.—Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth in the second century, maintained in a letter to Rome that St. Peter also visited Corinth. It is usual to think that this is merely a deduction which he made from the mention of Cephas in 1 Corinthians 1:12. It is quite possible that this is the case, but even so it is doubtful whether it is quite so certain that his deduction was wrong. After all, the existence of a party of Cephas in Corinth, alongside of those of Apollos and St. Paul, does suggest very strongly that Cephas, like the others, had actually been in Corinth. It is no doubt possible that the party of Cephas was one which had only heard of St. Peter; but the question is whether we have any reason for supposing that this was the case. Personally, I am very doubtful whether we have, and I think that in this respect we are too much under the influence of Tübingen criticism, or criticism which has unconsciously absorbed much of the principles of Tübingen, even when consciously opposing them. The result has been an exaggeration of the Judaism of St. Peter, and this has in turn created a strong prejudice against any tradition which ascribes to St. Peter missionary activity outside the circle of Palestinian Judaistic Christianity. Nevertheless, this prejudice is not supported by facts. What do we know from the Acts about St. Peter? It is not difficult to summarize our knowledge. He appears, first of all, as the leader of “the Twelve” in Jerusalem; at Pentecost he preaches with success to Hellenistic Jews; he comes into conflict with the Jewish authorities, but in the end succeeds in maintaining his position. He next appears as supporting and following up the work of the Hellenist “Seven,” outside Jerusalem, in Samaria and elsewhere, and takes the serious step of admitting a Gentile without insisting on his becoming a proselyte and undergoing circumcision. So far from appearing to be the leader of a Judaistic type of Christianity, he is steadily depicted by St. Luke as favouring expansion and liberality. Going on still further, he is represented as supporting the claims of the Antiochene movement at the Apostolic Council. He then disappears from the pages of Acts, but it is noteworthy that later, when St. Paul returns to Jerusalem for the last time, St. Peter is apparently not present. The fact is that for some reason of his own St. Luke did not see fit to tell the further story of any of the Apostles’ labours except St. Paul’s. The silence of Acts as to St. Peter after the Council does not imply in any sense that he stayed in Palestine, or did not preach either to Hellenistic Jews or to Gentiles. Did St. Luke intend to return to the story of St. Peter in that third book which he surely proposed writing?
But, it used to be alleged, the Acts is a “mediating” book; we have here not St. Peter as he was, but a Paulinized version of him; the Epistle to the Galatians gives us truth—shows us that St. Paul and St. Peter were opponents, not allies, and that the latter only preached to Jews. This contention seems to be greatly exaggerated so far as Acts is concerned. No doubt St. Luke saw history in the light of later events; no doubt, also, he was writing with a purpose, and not merely in order to chronicle facts. But the whole tendency of criticism is to show that he was, according to the standards of his day, a competent and honest historian. It is absurd to treat him as infallible, or to find a deep significance in every change of expression, but it is equally absurd to look for apologetic reasons for every statement, and to ignore the probability that the main reason for most of them is that he believed them to be true. Moreover, the conclusion drawn from Galatians cannot stand investigation. All that St. Paul says is that when St. Peter was in Antioch he gave up his usual intercourse with the Gentile Christians under pressure from the emissaries from St. James of Jerusalem, and that St. Paul rebuked him. So far from implying that St. Peter was the consistent antagonist of Paulinism, or of the Antiochene movement, he is represented as friendly to it, and only yielding under pressure to the extremists from Jerusalem. Nor does the statement that it was agreed at Jerusalem that St. Paul should preach to the Gentiles, and the others to “the circumcision,” in the least imply that St. Peter should not travel in the Roman Empire. “The circumcision” covers the Diaspora, as well as Palestinian Jewry, and even if we suppose that St. Peter always wished to keep strictly and literally to this compact, there is nothing to show that he did not travel all over the Roman Empire, as tradition says that he did, preaching to the Jews in the Diaspora, and finally reaching Rome. But if he did this it is practically certain that he would be brought into contact with Gentile God-fearers, just as St. Paul was, and so in the end would be obliged to preach to Gentiles, however much his original plan may have been to confine his teaching to Jews. In this case we have to repeat the question,—why should we not think that St. Peter really was in Corinth, and that the party of Cephas was composed of those who had been converted by him, just as the other parties were composed of the converts of St. Paul and of Apollos? The real objection is probably the feeling that if St. Peter had been in Corinth, St. Paul would have said more about him. No doubt he would have done so had he been writing for our benefit, but in writing to the Corinthians the necessity was not so clear; in writing letters no one expatiates on points well known to his correspondent, but on those which are unknown or disputed. We can see this in the precisely parallel case of Apollos; he had been prominent in Corinth, and also had a party of followers, yet we should hear nothing of him in 1 Corinthians, apart from the existence of his party, if it had not been for the accidental fact that he was in Ephesus when St. Paul was writing. Thus, the absence of further references in 1 Corinthians is no proof that St. Peter had not been in Corinth.
Probably, then, St. Peter ought to be regarded, along with St. Paul and Apollos, as one of the founders of the Church at Corinth, and, at least, we must suppose that some of his disciples had visited the city. It is, moreover, not inconceivable that the use of the name Cephas, not Peter, implies that St. Peter was here also preaching to the Jews rather than to the Gentiles, but this is probably too subtle, for, unless the text in Galatians is corrupt, it would seem that St. Paul used “Cephas” and “Peter” indifferently, and on no fixed principle (cf. Galatians 1:18; Galatians 2:7-8, Galatians 2:11, Galatians 2:14).
More important, however, than any of these points, and much more certain, is the fact that there is no trace in these Epistles that the party of Cephas (or any other party) was Judaistic, or represented the principles of the stiff Jerusalem Church. This is equally important for the understanding of the Epistles to the Corinthians, and as a corroboration of the view expressed above that the figure of a Judaizing St. Peter is a figment of the Tübingen critics with no basis in history. In this way the Corinthian Church was founded and built up, first by St. Paul, afterwards by Apollos, and either by St. Peter or some unknown disciple of St. Peter.For our knowledge of the next period in the history of the community we are dependent on the Epistles, and it is now necessary to turn to them and try to extract from them the history which is behind them. THE INCIDENTS WHICH EXPLAIN THE EXISTENCE
AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLES The general outlines of these incidents can be stated in a very few words—it is the history of a quarrel. To us the principles which lie behind this quarrel are more important than the actual course of its development; but neither the one nor the other is intelligible, unless the fact be grasped that the Epistles were not written by St. Paul to illustrate general principles, or to give an exposé of Christian practice, but as definite attempts to deal with extremely concrete questions, which gave rise to a violent quarrel between St. Paul and the Corinthians. Of this quarrel we can see the beginnings in 1 Corinthians, the middle and the end in 2 Corinthians. Who the persons were who opposed St. Paul must be discussed at length later, but it is clear that the difference of opinion was partly doctrinal, partly practical.
What was the general course of the quarrel? To answer this question shortly the results reached in pp. 120–175 must be assumed for the moment, in the hope that the appearance of undue certainty with regard to much-disputed passages may be counteracted by the later paragraphs in which the difficulties are discussed in detail. The first step which we can distinguish is a letter, no longer extant (it is convenient to call it the “previous letter”), sent by St. Paul to the Corinthians, warning them against associating with immoral persons. No doubt this letter was led up to by information which he had received from Corinth that such a warning was necessary.
After this he was told by members of the household of Chloe, an unknown person who had some relations with Corinth, that the practical question of immorality in the community remained, that it was complicated by a spirit of partizanship and litigiousness, and perhaps also that his letter had not been fully understood. At the same time, or almost immediately afterwards, three Corinthians, Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, arrived at Ephesus bearing a letter for St. Paul, asking him a series of questions on practical and doctrinal problems. No doubt they also supplemented their letter in conversation. In consequence of these communications St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, dealing in the first half with the information given by Chloe, in the second with the Corinthians’ letter and the information of Stephanas and his comrades. But before sending the Epistle St. Paul instructed Timothy, who was just starting for Macedonia, to go on to Corinth, and to do his best to remedy the scandals in the Church. He also announced his intention—half hopefully, half threateningly—of himself coming before long to Corinth.
Timothy returned, with the unpleasant news that the situation was worse instead of better, and St. Paul himself hurried across to Corinth. Even this failed, and the crisis appeared desperate. As a last resort he wrote a severe letter to the Corinthians, and sent it by Titus, warning the disobedient members of the Church that he proposed to come again, and this time would know how to secure their submission. It is probable that 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 is part of this severe letter.
Soon after this St. Paul left Asia, and made his way overland through Macedonia to Corinth, greatly longing for the report of Titus as to the Corinthian crisis. Titus met him in Macedonia, and was able to report a complete success. The disobedient had been disowned and punished by the majority and had submitted, the crisis was over, and peace restored, though there was a stern minority which still pressed for severer punishment.
St. Paul was overjoyed, and 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 is the outpouring of gratitude and relief which he at once wrote, and sent back by Titus to Corinth, commissioning him at the same time to take charge of the arrangements for a contribution for the poor which St. Paul hoped to be able to take to Jerusalem.
Such is the outline of the history of the quarrel which lies behind the Epistles. It will be necessary in the following sections to go through it in detail, to discuss the various points of which it is composed, and to attempt the reconstruction of a picture of the community, or, at all events, of the opposition in it to St. Paul, and the practical questions which were agitating it.
THE CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL PROBLEMS
CONNECTED WITH THE EPISTLES
These problems may best be treated in two subdivisions, according as they belong to 1 or 2 Corinthians, because whereas those belonging to 1 Corinthians are comparatively simple, those belonging to 2 Corinthians form a complex of difficulties which is not surpassed in intricacy by anything in the New Testament.
CORINTHIANS The points connected with 1 Corinthians are:—
(1) The “Previous Letter” of St. Paul to the Corinthians.
(2) The information given to St. Paul by “those of Chloe.”
(3) The mission of Timothy.
(4) The letter of the Corinthians to St. Paul, and the supplementary information given by its bearers.
(5) The time and place of the writing of the Epistle.
(1) THE PREVIOUS LETTER
According to the Acts St. Paul was eighteen months in Corinth, and, when he left it, he went in the company of Aquila and Priscilla as far as Ephesus, and afterwards alone to Antioch and possibly Jerusalem, returning thence to Ephesus, where he stayed for three years. It is during these three years that the letters to the Corinthians were written, and that the crisis in the Corinthian Church developed. The first stage probably was that St. Paul was informed by some friend that the Corinthian Christians had a somewhat low standard as to the morality which they expected to find in their associates, and that he wrote them a letter—the “previous letter”—warning them against this failing. This Epistle is no longer extant, but the fact that it was written and the nature of at least part of its contents is revealed by 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, “I wrote to you (ἔγραψα) in my letter not to have company with fornicators,—not that I meant literally (πάντως) with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world, but now I write (ἔγραψα) unto you not to keep company with any man that is called a Brother if he be a fornicator,” etc. In the translation just given there is, of course, no room for doubt, but the English, unfortunately, does not convey a point of ambiguity which is present in the Greek. A Greek said ἔγραψα, “I wrote,” equally of a letter which he had penned ten years previously, and of one which he actually was writing—in referring to which we should say “I am writing”—because he regarded it from the standpoint of the recipient. It is therefore grammatically possible that St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5:9, is referring to the letter he is actually writing, but this grammatical possibility is excluded in practice by the fact that there is nothing in I Corinthians to which he could be referring, and also by the general drift of the passage. The translation of the first ἵγραψα is therefore certain; as will be seen the second ἵγραψα gives rise to more doubt.
It is therefore universally recognized that the Corinthians must have received a letter from St. Paul, enjoining on them circumspection in their relations to immoral persons. That this letter is, in its entirety, lost, is of course obvious, but there is nevertheless some degree of probability in the theory, which has often been put forward, that a fragment of it is imbedded in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1, which runs as follows: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Beliar? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for ye are a temple of the living God; as God hath said, ‘I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean; and I will receive you. And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.’ Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” This passage would clearly be exactly the sort of advice which afterwards would necessitate the explanation given in 1 Corinthians 5:9; and the theory that it really is a fragment of the lost first letter of St. Paul, is materially supported by the facts that it has no apparent connection with the immediate context before or after in 2 Corinthians, and that if it be removed, 2 Corinthians 7:2 fits on to 2 Corinthians 6:13 in the most natural manner. If the suggested interpolation be removed, we obtain the text: “O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own affections. Now for a recompence in like kind, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged. Open your hearts to us; we wronged no man, we corrupted no man, we defrauded no man. I speak not this to condemn you: for I have said before, that ye are in our hearts to die and live with you.” No one who did not know would ever guess that anything had been removed from the middle of this passage.
Although therefore this theory can from its nature never be regarded as more than a probable guess, it must at least be conceded that the guess is attractive; and its probability is enhanced, if the theory be accepted that 2 Corinthians shows signs in other places of not being originally a single letter (see pp.
Besides this hypothesis, J. Weiss, in his commentary on the Epistle, has made the suggestion that other fragments of the “previous letter” are embedded in 1 Corinthians. He thinks that there is so great a difference of tone between 1 Corinthians 10:1-22 (23) and the remainder of the section as to “things offered to idols,” that he attributes it to a different source, probably the “previous letter,” and thinks that 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, as well as possibly 1 Corinthians 9:24-37 and 1 Corinthians 1:2-34, belong to the same document. It must be admitted that there is a difference of tone, but an alternative suggestion (and I think a preferable one) is that St. Paul is addressing two different parties in Corinth (see pp.
It is not certain how much of the passage in 1 Corinthians 5:9 ff. ought to be considered as a quotation of the “previous letter,” nor can we be sure of St. Paul’s precise motive in referring to it. The context is the case of the incestuous person (see p.
(2) THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY “THOSE OF CHLOE” Of Chloe herself nothing is known: the most probable hypothesis is that she was a rich lady, either widowed or unmarried, who had a household of slaves or dependents, some of whom were acquainted with St. Paul and probably had been converted by him. But there is nothing to show whether Chloe lived in Corinth or in Ephesus, for the general conditions of the problem are equally well fulfilled by the view that she was an Ephesian connected in some way—perhaps by business of some kind—with Corinth, as by the more usual guess that she was a Corinthian who had relations with Ephesus. The only point certain—and also the only one important—is that “those of Chloe” were in a position to give St. Paul valuable information about the state of things among the Christians in Corinth. The extent of their information cannot be accurately defined, but it is at least certain that it laid emphasis on the growth of party feeling among the Christians at Corinth. This is shown by 1 Corinthians 1:11-12 : “It has been told me, brethren, by the [representatives] of Chloe that there are divisions among you. I mean that each says ‘I am of Paul,’ ‘and I of Apollos,’ ‘and I of Cephas,’ ‘and I of Christ.’ ” The view which has to be taken of the information implied by these verses depends on the exegesis given to them, and this is unfortunately by no means clear. The most simple view is that “those of Chloe” reported that the community was split up into the parties of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ, and in some form this view is now generally taken. The difficulties in it are: (1) the curious statement in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “Now these things, brethren, I have transferred in a figure to myself and Apollos for your sakes”; (2) the difficulty of understanding who the Christ party can have been. The statement in 1 Corinthians 4:6 has sometimes been interpreted as implying that St. Paul had throughout used the names of himself and Apollos as screens for the real party leaders: but this exegesis, though not impossible, is improbable. The natural meaning is that in the previous section (1 Corinthians 3:18-23, 1 Corinthians 4:1-4), in which St. Paul warns the Corinthians against an excessive estimate of the importance of himself and other leaders, who are after all merely the “ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God,” his intention was really to warn his readers against a similarly excessive estimate of their spiritual gifts and personal importance. He does not in the least mean that the parties of St. Paul and Apollos did not exist. The difficulty of identifying the “Christ party” is greater. In no other passage in 1 Corinthians does St. Paul ever refer to any party which regarded itself as especially that of Christ. And in 1 Corinthians 3:21,while purposely, as it seems, mentioning the other parties—of Paul, Apollos, and Cephas—he says nothing of a “Christ party,” but continues “and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” Influenced by this fact Räbiger has suggested that ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ in 1 Corinthians 1:12 is not co-ordinate with the other phrases. In a writer who pays regard to stylistic propriety such a suggestion would be absurd; but St. Paul’s style is far from being formally correct, and I am not sure that the least difficult solution to an exceedingly difficult problem is not to translate and punctuate thus: “I mean that each says ‘I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’—but I am of Christ! Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?” The advantages of it are that it adds to the force of μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός; and changes it from a most difficult phrase to an intelligible and well-pointed question, and that it brings the whole passage into line with 1 Corinthians 3:4 (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:11) and 1 Corinthians 3:21-23, in which the Paul, Apollos, and Cephas parties are mentioned, but Christ appears only as the bond of common unity in which all the parties ought to sink their differences. It is also supported by the fact that Clement in his epistle to Corinth (47:3) mentions the parties of Paul, Cephas, and Apollos, but not the Christ party. The objections are, first, that it makes the ἐγὼ in ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ mean something different from what it means in the precisely parallel phrases ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ and ὲγὼ δὲ Ἀπολλώ, and, secondly, that there seems to be a possible reference to the Christ party in 2 Corinthians 10:7, “If any man trusteth in himself that he is Christ’s, let him consider this again with himself, that, even as he is Christ’s, so also are we.” This last passage is not absolute proof that the phrase in the First Epistle really refers to a definite party, for, after all, the claim to be Christ’s was the ultimate contention of all the parties, and in an inclusive sense was admitted by St. Paul; it is not impossible that St. Paul here means no more than an appeal to the fact that he and his opponent both relied, in the end, on their spiritual experience —the conviction that they were Christ’s. Nevertheless, it certainly is the strongest argument that exists, and perhaps turns the scales of probability against the ingenious and otherwise attractive suggestion of Räbiger. A still more radical suggestion, commended among others by J. Weiss, is that ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ is an interpolation, and due to an original marginal interjection by a pious scribe. This is possible, though personally I prefer Räbiger’s hypothesis.
If these views be rejected, and the existence of a Christ party be accepted, we must clearly take as referring to it 2 Corinthians 10:7, which practically means that the Christ party was that against which St. Paul fulminates in 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13. The characteristics of this party will have to be discussed later (see pp.
There is comparatively little room for profitable discussion as to the parties of Cephas and Apollos. As was said above (p. 116) it has been suggested that the party of Cephas represents Judaizing propaganda. This is quite improbable, and rests partly on an unnecessary inference from the use of the name Cephas instead of Peter, partly on a largely antiquated theory of Church history, which invented a double stream in early Christianity under the leadership of St. Peter and St. Paul. That there was opposition to St. Paul is unquestionable, but that it was inspired by St. Peter is more than doubtful. Moreover, if there really had been definitely Judaizing propaganda at this time against St. Paul, it is surely more likely to have taken to itself the name of St. James rather than that of St. Peter.
It has also been suggested that the party of Apollos was especially addicted to an exaggeration of Alexandrian philosophy. This theory is partly based on facts, but it is not clear that reference is especially made to Apollos or his party. The point is that immediately after his direct rebuke of partizanship, St. Paul passes, in 1 Corinthians 1:17-31, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, 1 Corinthians 3:1-23, 1 Corinthians 4:1-21, into a long section in which it may be said that two themes are interlaced,—the relation of his gospel to “wisdom,” and a renewed deprecation of partizanship. Certainly it is clear that the partizan spirit in Corinth was in some way connected with an exaltation of “wisdom,” and the bearing of this fact will have to be considered when the opposition to St. Paul is discussed (see pp.
Moreover, if we may judge from the obviously friendly relationship between St. Paul and Apollos (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:12) it is, in any case, improbable that the latter was, any more than St. Paul himself, the conscious cause of partizanship. It was not the leaders—or at least not those whom St. Paul mentions—who were responsible for the parties, but their rash and imperfectly instructed followers. This, no doubt, did give rise among other things to an undue exaltation of “wisdom,” and, as will be seen in connection with 2 Corinthians, helped to produce a very critical situation in the Christian community at Corinth. This information as to the partizanship in the Church at Corinth seems to have been the chief information given to St. Paul by “those of Chloe.” It is evident from 1 Corinthians that he regarded it very seriously, and foresaw the possibility that it might give an unpleasant character to the visit to Corinth which he contemplated.“Some,” he says (1 Corinthians 4:18), “are puffed up, as though I were not coming to you. But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and I will know, not the word of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? Shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of meekness?” To avoid this possibility he sent Timothy (1 Corinthians 4:17) to try to bring the Corinthians into a better frame of mind. But before discussing this visit of Timothy, it is desirable to consider certain points which “those of Chloe” may have told St. Paul, and with which Timothy would certainly have had to deal on his arrival.
These points are indicated in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, 1 Corinthians 6:1-20, and may be shortly described as (α) an instance either of incest or of incestuous marriage; (β) a tendency to litigation among Christians in the heathen courts; (γ) a tendency to immorality.
(α) The Case of Incest.—What precisely was the question at issue is not clear. St. Paul merely says, “It is actually reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even among the Gentiles, that one of you hath his father’s wife.” Whether this was incest or an incestuous marriage is not stated, nor is it possible to say whether it was “those of Chloe” who brought the report, or some one else. In any case it would seem that the community had not treated the matter seriously enough. “And ye,” said St. Paul (1 Corinthians 5:2), “are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from you.” He therefore reminds them of the principles laid down in the “previous letter,” and adjures them to adopt a firm attitude in this matter, and exclude the offender from their midst.
(β) The Tendency to Litigation.—From 1 Corinthians 6:1 ff., it would seem that there was a tendency in Corinth to litigation in the heathen courts between Christians, and St. Paul suggests that these matters ought to be settled by the Christians among themselves. This much is certain; but no hint is given as to the nature of the questions which had led to litigation. It is, of course, plain that the preceding incident—the man who had taken his father’s wife—can, whatever it may have exactly been, have easily led to litigation of more than one sort; but there is nothing to prove that this was or was not the case. The chief importance of the incident is that it is by far the most weighty, if not the only, evidence in the Epistle as to the vexed question whether the Christian Churches were organized on a Jewish or Gentile model. There is no evidence in the earlier Epistles of St. Paul which really enables us to sketch, even in outline, the organization of a Christian community at this time, not because there probably was no organization, but because it was not yet a matter which had given rise to polemical discussion. St. Paul says nothing about it, because it was not controversial, and his Epistles are controversial letters, not general statements of universally accepted facts. But here, in the question of litigation, we are given a single valuable hint as to the attitude of the Corinthian Christians. Clearly there was a party which held that disputes ought to be settled by the Church, and another which held that they might be brought before the Roman courts. Apparently the latter was in the majority, though this is not quite plain. Now, this is just one of the points which distinguishes Greek from Jewish ideas. The Jews always claimed that the synagogue was a competent court for all disputes. The Greek θίασοι, on the other hand, never seem to have entertained the idea (which would certainly have had a short life at the hands of Roman lawyers) that they had any general jurisdiction over their members. An initiate in the mysteries of Isis went to law with another initiate about ordinary disputes (St. Paul’s βιωτικά), without any hesitation. The fact that some of the Corinthians were taking the Greek line is therefore important and interesting.
(γ) The General Tendency to Immorality.—Much the same must be said of the third point. In 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, St. Paul is clearly warning the Corinthians against a laxity of morals, of which he has heard either from “those of Chloe” or from some other source. Obviously it is possible that this is connected with the case of incest, which might not unnaturally have given rise to inquiries by St. Paul from his informant on this subject as to the general level of morality among the Corinthian Christians, while it is, on the other hand, equally possible that there is no connection between the two sections. The view to be taken of the question depends largely on that adopted towards the previous point. If there was a connection between the case of incest dealt with in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 and the tendency to litigation reproved in the following passage, it is extremely probable that the third section is still connected with the same incident; if, on the other hand, there was no such connection, it is less probable that St. Paul, after dealing with the case of incest and going on to another topic, should turn back once more to his original subject.
Further than this it is impossible to go: we only possess a letter written for the edification of the Corinthians—not to give information to historians,—and it is unreasonable to expect that we can reconstruct out of it all the circumstances to which it refers. Much, no doubt, can be done, but there remains much which can never be entirely cleared up. The question as to the possible relation between this moral difficulty and the doctrinal disputes in Corinth is discussed on pp. 176 ff.
(3) THE MISSION OF TIMOTHY
Closely connected with the information given by “those of Chloe” is the mission of Timothy. In consequence of the reports as to the partizan scandals in Corinth, St. Paul sent Timothy to see if he could reduce the evil, especially as he heard that his own absence was having a bad effect.
“I have sent Timothy,” he says, in 1 Corinthians 4:17, “for this very purpose to you, … to remind you of my behaviour in Christ,” etc. And in 1 Corinthians 16:10, he returns to the subject, and says, “If Timothy come, see that he be with you without fear; for he worketh the work of the Lord, as I also do: let no man therefore despise him. But set him forward on his journey in peace, that he may come unto me, for I expect him with the brethren.” From these two passages it would seem that Timothy was sent off from Ephesus after St. Paul had received the information given him by “those of Chloe,” and before the departure of the bearers of 1 Corinthians: but in the second passage St. Paul seems strangely uncertain whether Timothy would really reach Corinth, or, if he did, whether he would not arrive later than the bearers of his letter, in spite of the fact that he had started first.
Further information is not given in 1 Corinthians, nor is the visit of Timothy mentioned in 2 Corinthians, but in Acts 19:22 it is stated that St. Paul “sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timothy and Erastus,” and it is generally supposed that this refers to the mission of Timothy referred to in 1 Corinthians. The obvious advantage of this theory is that it explains why St. Paul thought that Timothy might possibly reach Corinth later than 1 Corinthians. This becomes intelligible if Timothy went round through Macedonia, while the bearers of the letter went by sea. On the other hand, it is true that it is strange to describe a journey from Ephesus through Macedonia and Achaia, merely by a reference to Macedonia. But the possibility of a slight inaccuracy in the Acts ought not to be lost sight of, or it may be that St. Luke wrote Macedonia, because in practice Macedonia was further from Ephesus than was Corinth. On the evidence we can go no further than to say that the visit of Timothy in 1 Corinthians may be identical with that in Acts 19:21, but that this is not proved, and that the two visits may be separate. As will be seen, the matter is chiefly important in connection with the dating of 1 Corinthians.
(4) THE LETTER OF THE CORINTHIANS TO ST. PAUL, AND THE INFORMATION OF ITS BEARERS
It would appear from the preceding discussion that 1 Corinthians 1:1-31, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, 1 Corinthians 3:1-23, 1 Corinthians 4:1-21, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, 1 Corinthians 6:1-20 is probably based in the main on the information given to St. Paul by those of Chloe. The rest of the Epistle (1 Corinthians 7:1-40, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, 1 Corinthians 10:1-33, 1 Corinthians 11:1-34, 1 Corinthians 12:1-31, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, 1 Corinthians 14:1-40, 1 Corinthians 15:1-58, 1 Corinthians 16:1-24) seems to rest on a different basis. In 1 Corinthians 16:17, St. Paul says, “I rejoice at the arrival of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, for that which was lacking on your part they supplied”; and in 1 Corinthians 7:1, he refers to a letter which he had received from the Corinthians. It is obvious, putting these two references together, that St. Paul used the verbal communications of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus to supplement the Corinthians’ information, and it is not unlikely that they were themselves the bearers of the letter.
To distinguish exactly between the information given by the letter and the supplementary matter added by the three Corinthians is neither possible nor really important. But it seems as though the greater part of 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, 1 Corinthians 10:1-33, 1 Corinthians 11:1-34, 1 Corinthians 12:1-31, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, 1 Corinthians 14:1-40, 1 Corinthians 15:1-58, 1 Corinthians 16:1-24 is directly based on the letter, the various points in which are indicated by a more or less regularly recurring formula. This is to be found as follows:—
περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε | |
περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων | |
περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων | |
περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν | |
περὶ δὲ τῆς λογιας | |
περὶ δὲ Ἀπόλλω |
It will be seen at once that these introductory formulae take with them the greater part of 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, 1 Corinthians 10:1-33, 1 Corinthians 11:1-34, 1 Corinthians 12:1-31, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, 1 Corinthians 14:1-40, 1 Corinthians 15:1-58, 1 Corinthians 16:1-12, that is, the whole of the second half of the Epistle; but there are a few important paragraphs which present difficulties. It is clear that there is no break between 1 Corinthians 7:1 and 1 Corinthians 7:24, the section concerning marriage, or between 1 Corinthians 7:25 and 1 Corinthians 7:40, concerning “virgins,” or between 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, concerning things offered to idols, but the next section, 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, is not so easy. At first sight it seems to have nothing to do with things offered to idols, but to deal with the question of St. Paul’s own behaviour, and it is sometimes regarded as primarily an answer to attacks made upon his authority. It is possible, indeed probable, that there is some reference to these attacks, but if this be taken as the main object of the section it is hard to find any satisfactory explanation for the references to the Jews who were “baptized in the sea and the cloud” in 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, or for the fact that in 1 Corinthians 10:14 St. Paul returns to the question of idolatry in such a way as to suggest that he regarded the section 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, 1 Corinthians 10:1-13 as contributing to the solution of the question raised by the things offered to idols. It is therefore much more probable that the point which explains the relation between the different parts of the whole answer to the question about “things offered to idols,” covering 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, 1 Corinthians 10:1, is that some of the Corinthians defended the custom of eating such things, partly on the ground that they were free and had authority to eat them—which St. Paul controverts by means of his own example in other matters—and partly on the ground that having been baptized and become Christians they were safe from all evil—which St. Paul controverts by the example of the Israelites who fell in the wilderness in spite of the privileges which they had received.
Thus, from 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, 1 Corinthians 9:1-27, 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, 1 Corinthians 11:1 is entirely given up to questions raised by the Corinthians’ letter. The next section is more doubtful. The beginning (“Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things,” 1 Corinthians 11:2) seems to be a quotation from, or a reference to, an assurance given in their letter, and it is probable that this led up to questions concerning the behaviour of men and women in the Church. Thus, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is probably directly inspired by the Corinthians’ letter, but 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, dealing with the question of the celebration of the Eucharist, is introduced by a different formula: St. Paul says, “But in giving this instruction (as to men and women), I do not commend the fact that your meetings are deteriorating instead of improving; for I hear,” etc. That is to say, he is not commenting on their letter, but on information given to him orally, presumably by Stephanas and his companions. This section, therefore, is only indirectly connected with the Corinthians’ letter, and was inspired by the verbal communications of Stephanas. In the next section, 1 Corinthians 12:1-31, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, 1 Corinthians 14:1-40, dealing with πνευματικῶν (“spirituals”) the introductory formula shows that St. Paul is dealing with the letter, and for the present purpose there are no difficulties to discuss. 1 Corinthians 15:1-58 is more difficult: it discusses the Resurrection, and begins with the formula “γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν”—“I would have you to know” is perhaps the best translation. Although this is not the same formula as St. Paul elsewhere uses in connection with the letter, it is probable that it is nevertheless a reference, and that we ought to conclude that the Corinthians asked a question concerning the resurrection of the dead. The alternative is to suppose that Stephanas and his friends reported that there were doubts on the subject. The remaining chapter is less difficult: 1 Corinthians 16:1-11 is concerned with a question in the letter relating to a collection for the poor, and with the projected arrivals of Timothy and St. Paul in connection with it: 1 Corinthians 16:12 is also concerned with a simple question in the letter as to the plans of Apollos, and the remaining verses, 1 Corinthians 16:13-24, are the final greetings and advice of St. Paul, in which he expresses his pleasure at having seen Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, and—apparently thinking once more of the parties—advises the Corinthians to follow the guidance of Stephanas.
Thus, the letter of the Corinthians was a series of questions about practical and doctrinal points as to which the community was in doubt. The fact that there was at that time controversy, or at least uncertainty, on those points is of the greatest importance for the understanding of the general position of Christianity in Corinth, and must be discussed later. It is for the moment sufficient to set out the probable list of questions, together with the references to the places in 1 Corinthians in which St. Paul deals with them.
Marriage, sexual relations, and divorce | |
“Virgins” | |
Re-marriage of widows | |
Things sacrificed to idols | 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 |
Customs during worship | |
The Eucharist (arising out of supplementary information) | |
“Spirituals” | 1 Corinthians 12:1-31 |
The resurrection of the dead | |
The collection for the poor | |
The plans of Apollos |
(5) THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE WRITING OF 1 CORINTHIANS
It has been seen that 1 Corinthians is partly comment on information given by those of Chloe, and partly an answer to a letter sent by the Corinthians to St. Paul. The questions are, when and whence did he send it? By the first question is meant not so much the absolute date of the Epistle, as its relative position in the three years that St. Paul spent in Asia. The general opinion is that it was early in the year (according to our reckoning) in which St. Paul left Ephesus and came to Corinth on his way up to Jerusalem for the last time. This view is based on 1 Corinthians 16:3 ff.: “When I arrive, whomsoever ye approve, them will I send with letters to carry your bounty to Jerusalem; and if it be meet for me to go also, they shall go with me. But I shall come unto you, when I have passed through Macedonia; for I do pass through Macedonia; but with you it may be that I shall abide, or even winter, that ye may set me forward on my journey whithersoever I go, for I do not wish to pay you merely a passing visit. But I shall wait at Ephesus until Pentecost; for a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries.” The suggestion is that these verses show that St. Paul wrote not long before Pentecost, and that the visit which he states that he proposes to pay to Corinth is identical with that which, according to Acts 20:2, he actually paid after he left Ephesus and had travelled through Macedonia. In this case the letter was written in the spring of the year in the autumn of which St. Paul left Ephesus; and if the intended visit mentioned in 1 Corinthians must be identified with the actual visit described in Acts, no other conclusion can be possible. This identification can be controlled by references to a collection in 2 Corinthians 8:10; and 2 Corinthians 9:1 ff., as compared with the First Epistle. In 1 Corinthians 16:1 ff., St. Paul says, “Now, concerning the collection for the saints, as I gave order to the Churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I arrive.” It is impossible with any straightforward exegesis to explain this as meaning anything except that the collection was not ready—probably scarcely begun —at the time when St. Paul wrote. But in 2 Corinthians 9:1 ff. he says, “For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you, for I know your readiness, of which I glory on your behalf to them of Macedonia, that Achaia has been ready since last year”; and in 2 Corinthians 8:10 he gives the same reference to time: “This is expedient for you, who were the first to make a beginning last year, not only to do, but also to will.” In both these places the R.V. translates ἀπὸ πέρυσι, “a year ago,” which means, in ordinary English, twelve months, but the more accurate rendering is “last year.” Now, for St. Paul, as a Greek Jew, the year must have begun in October, and therefore, if he be writing 2 Corinthians after that date, last year could mean in the previous spring —assuming, that is to say, that 1 Corinthians was written in the spring before Pentecost. If, however, he was writing before October, the date of the Epistle must be put back a full year. The evidence of Acts suggests that the former alternative is the more probable, though it scarcely enables us to form a decisive opinion. According to Acts 20:6, St. Paul left Philippi on his last journey to Jerusalem in the spring (after the days of unleavened bread). He had reached Philippi from Corinth, where he had stayed three months (Acts 20:3), so that he must have reached Corinth about the beginning of January. He had come to Corinth from Ephesus through Macedonia, where he must have been in December and probably also in November, as Acts states that he gave them “much exhortation.” He was, however, already in Macedonia when he wrote 2 Corinthians 8:1-24 referring to “last year,” and the impression given by 2 Corinthians is that he had already been there some time. Thus the probability certainly seems to be that 2 Corinthians was written during November, early in the Jewish new year; so that 1 Corinthians and the arrangements made in the spring for the collection at Corinth would naturally be described as “last year.”
Thus the probability is that 1 Corinthians was written about nine months before St. Paul’s visit to Corinth, narrated in Acts 20:2, to which he was looking forward when he wrote the opening chapters of 2 Corinthians. It will be noted that this implies that he stayed in Ephesus after Pentecost, which he had not originally intended to do. This must be granted on any theory which does not abandon the trustworthiness of Acts. So far it has been assumed that the Epistle was written from Ephesus. Probably this assumption is correct; but there is one objection which deserves statement. In 1 Corinthians 15:32, St. Paul says: “If after the manner of men (κατʼ ἄνθρωπον) I fought with beasts at Ephesus,” etc.; and in 1 Corinthians 16:8, he says, “But I shall wait at Ephesus until Pentecost.” Would he have spoken in this way, especially in 1 Corinthians 15:32, if at the time of writing he was still at Ephesus? J. Weiss thinks this extremely improbable, and is inclined to believe that the Epistle was written in Macedonia. Apparently he interprets 1 Corinthians 16:5, Μακεδονίαν γὰρ διέχομαι, to mean, “I am now passing through Macedonia.” Curiously enough, however, although he draws this conclusion from 1 Corinthians 15:32, he does not accept it for 1 Corinthians 16:8, which he considers to have been really written in Ephesus, and he attributes 1 Corinthians 16:7-9 and 1 Corinthians 16:15-20 to the “previous letter.” Admitting, however, that there is a superficial difficulty, I cannot see that this partition is here necessary. Διέρχομαι may refer to a future plan: or it may be that 1 Corinthians was really written from Macedonia, but that St. Paul regarded Ephesus as his centre to which he meant to return after his Macedonian journey. In this case, however, the “greetings of the Churches of Asia” are a difficulty. Or again, taking διέρχομαι as a reference to future plans, it is possible that the letter was written from some other town in Asia: we need not suppose that St. Paul actually stayed in Ephesus during the whole of the three years that he made that city his headquarters. The admission that there is a certain difficulty in the usual view that the Epistle was written from Ephesus is therefore the most that can be granted. The difficulty is not, after all, insurmountable: it is possible to say, “If I had fought with the beasts at Ephesus,”even in Ephesus, though it would be more natural to say “here” instead of “at Ephesus,” and the alternative theories seem to raise more difficulties than they solve. Probably, then, the Epistle was written from Ephesus in the last spring which St. Paul spent in that city.
Such are the main critical problems introductory to the study of 1 Corinthians: it will be seen that they prepare the way for a consideration of the far more interesting questions as to the reasons why the Corinthians were divided in their opinions as to things offered to idols, marriage, the resurrection of the dead, and the other points on which they consulted St. Paul.
2 CORINTHIANS
It is far more difficult to reconstruct the events implied by 2 Corinthians than those underlying the earlier Epistle. In the latter, though there are difficulties as to details, the main point—that it was called out by the information given by “those of Chloe” and by a letter from the Corinthians—has never been in dispute; but in 2 Corinthians more than one point of great importance is likely always to be a matter of controversy.
Starting with the state of affairs which obtained when 1 Corinthians was written and sent off, we know that St. Paul was in Asia, and that Timothy had been sent to Corinth in order to deal with the spirit of partizanship. It was this spirit which had especially distressed St. Paul, especially since it was coupled—in practice, if not in origin —with a low level of morality, and by personal attacks on his own position. The question is how this situation developed in the period, probably only about six months, between the two Epistles. What sort of report did Timothy bring back, and what further circumstances gave rise to 2 Corinthians? In so controversial a subject the fairest, and in the end probably the clearest, method is to begin by stating the facts, and afterwards to discuss the various interpretations which seem possible. The indisputable facts, then, may be summarized thus:—
(1) The Mission of Timothy.—There is an absolute silence on this subject in 2 Corinthians: it is certain that he had returned, for he is joined with St. Paul in the opening salutation (2 Corinthians 1:1), but there is nothing to say whether he had ever reached Corinth, much less any positive evidence as to his reception there.
(2) A Visit of St. Paul to Corinth.—Reference is made to a visit of St. Paul to Corinth, unrecorded in the Acts, and unmentioned in 1 Corinthians. This is proved by 2 Corinthians 12:14, “Behold, this is the third time I am ready to come to you,” and 2 Corinthians 13:1-2. “This is the third time I am coming to you.” The former of these passages might possibly be explained as referring merely to an intention, and meaning, “This is the third time that I have formed the plan of coming to you,” though this interpretation is not at all natural, but the latter is quite definite and must mean that St. Paul had visited Corinth twice before his final visit, recorded in Acts 20:2, which he was on his way to make when he wrote the opening section of 2 Corinthians. There is, however, nothing to show unmistakably whether the “second” visit ought to be placed before or after 1 Corinthians.
(3) A Severe Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians.—In 2 Corinthians 2:4, St. Paul says, “Out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears,” and in 2 Corinthians 7:8, “Though I made you sorry with my Epistle, I do not now regret it, though I did so once.” These descriptions can only apply to a letter which, written under the pressure of circumstances, was so severe that St. Paul was at one time inclined to think that it had been too harsh. There is no definite proof that it is not identical either with 1 Corinthians or with the “previous Epistle” (see pp.
(4) The Visits of Titus.—It is clear that Titus had been sent to Corinth, and that he had rejoined St. Paul in Macedonia. In 2 Corinthians 2:12, St. Paul says, “When I came to Troas … I found not Titus, my brother, but taking my leave of them, I went forth into Macedonia,” and in 2 Corinthians 7:5, “For even when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no relief, but we were afflicted on every side. … Nevertheless God comforted us by the coming of Titus,” etc. Moreover, from the context of these passages it appears that Titus’ mission was successful, for St. Paul expresses both in 2 Corinthians 2:1-17 and 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 his satisfaction at the result, and says (in 2 Corinthians 7:13) that the spirit of Titus “hath been refreshed by you all,” and in 2 Corinthians 7:15, that “his (i.e. Titus’) inward affection is more abundantly toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.” It would also appear that Titus, after thus rejoining St. Paul, went back to Corinth. His return and St. Paul’s expression of hope for his good reception form the substance of 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15
Thus we have clear evidence that Titus paid two visits to Corinth, one before and one after 2 Corinthians; that between these two visits he had an interview with St. Paul in Macedonia; and that he then reported his experiences on his first visit.
(5) The Report of Titus to St. Paul.—Titus was successful in his first visit to Corinth, but what was the report which he brought from Corinth to Macedonia? Three points are plain, but each of them gives rise to a further problem which is by no means clear. In the first place, it may be stated with positiveness that the difficulty at Corinth centred in a personal dispute. There were two persons whom St. Paul calls in 2 Corinthians 7:12, “he who did the wrong” (ὁ ἀδικήσας), “he who suffered the wrong” (ὁ ἀδικηθείς). We can even go further and identify him who did the wrong with the person who is described in 2 Corinthians 2:6 ff. as condemned, punished, and penitent.1
These, then, are the facts for which room has to be made in any reconstruction of the events leading up to 2 Corinthians,—a “severe letter” from St. Paul to the Corinthians, and a successful visit by Titus. The problems which must be faced are—
(1) The significance of the silence of 2 Corinthians on the mission of Timothy.
(2) The position of the “second” visit of St. Paul.
(3) The possible identification of the “severe letter” with 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13.
(4) The visits of Titus to Corinth.
(5) The reconstruction of the report of Titus.
It will also be noticed that, just as the consideration of the critical problems in 1 Corinthians leaves for further discussion the really important question of the point of view of the Corinthian Christians, as implied by their questions to St. Paul, so also the consideration of the critical problems in 2 Corinthians leaves over the question of the character of the party opposed to St. Paul.
(1) THE MISSION OF TIMOTHY The silence of 2 Corinthians as to the mission of Timothy has been explained in two ways. Either Timothy never reached Corinth—which explains why St. Luke describes his journey as “to Macedonia”—or he was thoroughly unsuccessful in his object of bringing the Corinthians to a better frame of mind, and when, after all, peace was made between St. Paul and his converts, it was neither necessary nor tactful to refer to his visit. Between these two possibilities final judgment is impossible, but the latter seems much the more probable, and the supposition that Timothy returned to Ephesus, not long after 1 Corinthians was sent, with an extremely unpleasant report, to the effect that the Corinthians would not listen to his counsels, and that the troubles continued, fits in very well with the most probable solutions to the other problems, while as much can scarcely be said for the view that Timothy never reached Corinth at all.
(2) THE VISIT OF ST. PAUL TO CORINTH
Ought the “second” visit of St. Paul to be placed before 1 Corinthians, or inserted between it and 2 Corinthians? The points which have to be taken into consideration are these: (α) 1 Corinthians 4:21, “What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of meekness?” supported by 1 Corinthians 11:34, “The rest will I set in order when I come,” seems to prove that he not only contemplated a visit, but doubted whether it would be an entirely peaceful one, owing to the parties in the Church. (β) 2 Corinthians 2:1, “But I determined this for myself, that I would not come to you with sorrow again,” seems to show that he had, when he wrote, the memory of an unpleasant visit, and it should be noted that in the undoubtedly best text the “again” is closely connected with the “with sorrow.” Moreover, in the immediate context of this verse St. Paul’s meaning clearly is that some one, who had opposed him originally, had now been punished by the majority. The whole passage 2 Corinthians 2:1-11 must be studied from this point of view.
“But I determined this with myself, that I would not come again to you with sorrow. For if I make you sorry, who is he then that maketh me glad, but he that is made sorry by me? And I wrote this very thing unto you, lest, when I came, I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to rejoice; having confidence in you all, that my joy is the joy of you all. For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you. But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part (that I may not press too hardly) you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted by the majority. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, what I forgave for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; that no advantage be gained over us by Satan: for we are not ignorant of his devices.” Is it not plain that this passage implies a recent visit which had ended so unpleasantly that St. Paul had determined not to come back if he was likely to undergo similar experiences, and that he was, at the moment of writing, delighted to find that such action had been taken by the community that he was able to return without fear, since the leader of the opposition had been punished by a vote of the majority? It was a party question of some sort which had rendered his previous visit unpleasant, and the removal of this question took away his fear for a repetition of this experience. The natural corollary from these conclusions is that St. Paul’s forebodings in 1 Corinthians 4:21, that the party divisions at Corinth would prevent him from having a pleasant visit, had been painfully well fulfilled during a visit between the times of writing 1 and 2 Corinthians. That this is the natural view is universally conceded; but many interpreters of Corinthians have felt obliged to reject it, because they think that there is no room for a visit of St. Paul to Corinth between 1 and 2 Corinthians. Some of them, therefore, fall back on the very unnatural exegesis of 2 Corinthians 12:14 and 1 Corinthians 13:1, which denies that St. Paul means that he has already been twice to Corinth, and regards him merely as saying that he has three times intended to come. Others admit the fact of a second visit, but place it before 1 Corinthians. The main reason for this view is that on the hypothesis (certainly the most probable) that 1 Corinthians was written in the early spring, and 2 Corinthians in the early winter of (according to our reckoning) the same year, we have to assume more rapid travelling backward and forwards on the part of Timothy, St. Paul, and Titus than is thought to be probable. The objection to it is that there is no trace in 1 Corinthians of this second unpleasant visit, nor is it easy to see that 1 Corinthians supplies one with any material for imagining the cause of this unpleasantness. It cannot have been the partizanship, or the case of incest, or tendency to litigation, or immorality, for on all these points St. Paul seems to be dependent for his knowledge on the recent information of “those of Chloe”; in short, it may be said that, while the topics dealt with in 1 Corinthians supply ample reason for thinking that St. Paul might have (as he says himself in 1 Corinthians 4:21) an unpleasant visit in the immediate future, they give no reason whatever for thinking that he had had one in the past.
Under the influence of these facts Dr. Kennedy has urged that the usual dating of 1 Corinthians is wrong, and that it ought to be placed a year earlier; the main argument for this view is the necessity for finding room for the visit of St. Paul, and, secondly, the belief that ἀπὸ πέρυσι in 2 Corinthians 9:2 implies that 1 Corinthians was written twelve months previously. The reasons for not holding this latter opinion are given on p. 141 ff., and though I quite admit that the evidence seems to be irresistible in favour of a visit of St. Paul to Corinth between 1 and 2 Corinthians, I am not convinced that the time available on the ordinary view of the date of 1 Corinthians is really insufficient. From Corinth to Ephesus was one of the most frequented routes in the whole of the Mediterranean, and owing to the prevalence throughout the summer of north or north-westerly winds (usually more north than west) the journey could be made in either direction with the wind fairly well on the beam; an average passage would scarcely last longer than a week. Thus, all that the supposed difficulty of finding room for St. Paul’s visit to Corinth really amounts to, is that we must suppose that between the spring and autumn he was absent from Ephesus perhaps for four weeks,—possibly only a fortnight. Timothy, we know, had already started for Corinth viviâ Macedonia, before St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Let us suppose that Timothy returned early in May (there is no special reason why it should not have been earlier), with depressing news from Corinth. St. Paul immediately decided to go himself, and returned without any success. He would be back in Ephesus in July, and, as he does not seem to have left there until the autumn, this gives at least two months for him to write the “severe letter” and send it to Corinth with Titus. In some such reconstruction (which assumes for the moment the results of the discussion as to the mission of Titus, see pp.
Thus the various events seem to fit into one another, and justify the view that after sending 1 Corinthians, and probably after the return of Timothy with unpleasant news, St. Paul paid a short and unsuccessful visit to Corinth.
(3) THE SEVERE LETTER Can the “severe letter” be identified either with the “previous letter” or with 1 Corinthians? If not, is it to be found either in whole or in part in 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13. To the former of these two questions a negative answer must certainly be given. It is, in the first place, almost impossible that it should be the lost “previous letter,” because St. Paul clearly speaks of himself in 2 Corinthians 7:5, as only learning from Titus what the effect of his letter had been. This excludes the “previous letter” unless we suppose (α) that it had been sent off before either “those of Chloe” or Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus arrived at Ephesus, but had not yet reached Corinth; (β) that the references to it in 1 Corinthians do not mean that St. Paul had heard that it had been misunderstood, but only that he was afraid that it might be; and (γ) that when St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians it had not yet struck him that his former letter was so severe that he regretted it. This combination of improbabilities excludes the “previous letter” from serious consideration.
Similarly, 1 Corinthians itself is excluded by the description of the letter given in 2 Corinthians 2:4. Can any one believe that St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians “out of much affliction and anguish of heart, with many tears”?
It is therefore practically certain that the severe letter referred to in 2 Corinthians is really a Third Epistle, other than 1 Corinthians, or the “previous Epistle.” But many critics urge that this hypothetical Third Epistle is not really lost, but may, either in whole or in part, be identified with 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13. This view depends on somewhat complicated arguments, and can best be stated in the form of two propositions. (1) There is not only no connection between 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 and 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13, but there is an absolute break between them. (2) Internal evidence shows that 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 was written before 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 and 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13, and that it corresponds to the “severe letter” mentioned in 2 Corinthians 2:1-17 and 2 Corinthians 8:1-24.
(1) The break between2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15and2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13.—The general tone of 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 is of joy and sudden relief from great anxiety. The typical passage is 2 Corinthians 7:4-7, which describes the whole in a few words. “Great is my boldness of speech toward you, great is my glorying of you: I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation. For, when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears. Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus; and not by his coming only, but by the consolation wherewith he was comforted in you, when he told us your earnest desire, your mourning, your fervent mind toward me; so that I rejoiced the more.” And the same tone may be marked in the concluding words of 2 Corinthians 9:15, “Thanks be to God for His unspeakable gift.” Indeed, if 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 stood alone, we should have no difficulty in agreeing that the situation which it implies is that St. Paul had sent a letter to Corinth in order to bring the Church there to a better frame of mind, and that he had just heard, to his great relief, that this letter, combined with the presence of Titus, had been entirely successful. “In everything,” he writes in 2 Corinthians 7:11, “ye approved yourselves pure in the matter…therefore we have been comforted: and in our comfort we joyed the more exceedingly for the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed by you all. For if I have boasted anything to him of you, I was not put to shame; but as we spake all things to you in truth, even so our boasting, which I made before Titus, was found a truth. And his inward affection is more abundant toward you, whilst he remembereth the obedience of you all, how with fear and trembling ye received him.”
If we turn to 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13, we see a wholly different picture. The general tone is one of defending his own position, and threatening severe action against a disobedient Church. The opening words strike this note, which is never completely dropped until the final sentence. “Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am lowly among you, but being absent am bold toward you: yea, I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh” is the introduction which leads up to 2 Corinthians 13:2, “I have said, and do say beforehand,—as I did when present the second time, and now when I am at a distance,—to those who have sinned before, and to all the rest, that if I come again, I shall not be lenient.”
Thus there can be, and never has been, any dispute but that the whole tone of the Epistle changes suddenly at 2 Corinthians 10:1, and that, if 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 had existed in a separate form, no one would ever have dreamt of suggesting that it was the continuation of 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15.
(2) The internal evidence showing that2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13is earlier than2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15, and that it is the severe letter mentioned in the latter portion. This evidence may be described as a series of cross-references from 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 to 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13. These references are of two kinds: the first consists of general descriptions in 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 of the “severe letter” to which 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 is seen to answer; the second, of special allusions to the contents of the severe letter, all of which correspond to definite phrases in 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13. The general descriptions of the severe letter are the following:—
(α) In 2 Corinthians 2:4, St. Paul says that he had written the “severe letter” “out of much affliction and anguish of heart beset with many tears.”
(β) In 2 Corinthians 7:8, he says, “Though I made you sorry with my letter I do not regret it, though I did regret it,”—that is to say, the letter was so severe that after sending it he was inclined to doubt whether it was not, after all, excessive.
(γ) In 2 Corinthians 3:1, he says, “Do we begin again to commend ourselves?”—implying that in the previous letter there had been a marked element of self-commendation.
(δ) In 2 Corinthians 1:23, he says, “I call God for a witness upon my soul, that to spare you I did not come again to Corinth,”and in 2 Corinthians 2:1. “I determined this for myself, that I would not come to you again with sorrow.” That is to say, at the time of writing the severe Epistle, the possibility of paying a punitive visit was present to his mind, but was temporarily postponed in order to see what the effect of the letter would be.
Now, if one turn to 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13, these four general characteristics are all easily discovered. It is impossible to read these chapters without recognizing the intensity of feeling which inspires them, or to fail to agree with Dr. Kennedy that there are “many passages which we can believe to have been blotted with tears.” It is similarly obvious that there is (with the possible exception of Galatians) no other passage of the same length in the Pauline Epistles of which it is so easy to believe that its author may have been doubtful as to the propriety of such powerful invective. Still more strikingly is self-commendation the subject of a large part of 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13. It may indeed be fairly called the central theme of 2 Corinthians 10:7-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-10. Finally, that St. Paul when he wrote 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 was hesitating whether he would come to Corinth, and that this hesitation was due to his fear that if he came he would not be able to spare the Corinthians, is clear from the whole passage, 2 Corinthians 12:20-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-2. “For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults: lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed. This is the third time I am coming to you. At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. I have said, and do say beforehand— as I did when I came the second time, and now when I am at a distance—to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that, if I come again, I will not spare.” A more accurate description of the frame of mind revealed by this passage could scarcely be given than that which St. Paul gives in 2 Corinthians 1:23, of his feelings at the time when he sent off the severe Epistle.
Besides these general descriptions of the severe letter in 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15, to which 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 certainly answers in every respect, there are three pairs of passages which seem to amount to definite and verbal cross-references. These can best be shown in parallel columns.
(α) “For this cause I write these things from a distance, that I may not when I come deal sharply.”—2 Corinthians 13:10. | “And I wrote this same thing that when I came I might not have sorrow.”— 2 Corinthians 2:3. |
The obvious parallelism between these two passages is increased by the fact that the context shows that “might not have sorrow” in 2 Corinthians 2:3 is an euphemism for “deal sharply.” “For if I make you sorry,” he says in the preceding verse, “who then is he that maketh me glad, but he that is made sorry by me?”
(β)“If I come again I will not spare.”—2 Corinthians 13:2. | “To spare you I came not again to Corinth.”—2 Corinthians 1:23. |
(γ) “Being in readiness to avenge all disobedience when your obedience shall be fulfilled.”—2 Corinthians 10:6. | “For to this end also did I write that I might know the proof of you, whether ye are obedient in all things.”—2 Corinthians 2:9. |
These three pairs of passages are very striking, and gain in force if each be read in its context; it seems difficult to deny that St. Paul, in each case, is referring to the same thing,—in the passage from 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 in the present tense, and in that from 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 in the past.
Moreover, this argument is not only a very strong reason for seeing the “severe letter”—or rather part of it—in 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13, but it greatly strengthens the case for maintaining that in any case there is no unity between 2 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15 and 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13. Any theory which maintains that 2 Corinthians is a simple letter, all written at one time, must explain not only why there is a sudden change of tone in the middle (which is generally done by assuming that St. Paul is writing to his friends in one part and to his opponents in the other), but also why there is this remarkable appearance of cross-references from one part to the other, and always of such a nature that the chapters which come at the end of the Epistle, as it is now arranged, refer in the present sense to events which are alluded to in the past tense in the earlier chapters. This is the case for identifying 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 with part of the “severe letter”: it can be supported by various subsidiary arguments. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 a characteristic feature is the use of the word καυχᾶσθαι (“boast” or “glory”) in connection with St. Paul’s claims to consideration. “Though I should glory somewhat abundantly concerning our authority, I shall not be put to shame” (2 Corinthians 10:8); “Let no man think me foolish; but if ye do, yet as foolish receive me, that I also may glory a little. That which I speak, I speak not after the Lord, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of glorying, seeing that many glory after the flesh, I will glory also” (2 Corinthians 11:16-18); “If I needs must glory, I will glory of the things that concern my weakness” (2 Corinthians 11:30); and the list of passages could be extended.
Compare this with 2 Corinthians 1:12 ff., “For our glorying is this, the testimony of your conscience … we are your glorying, even as ye are ours,” or with 2 Corinthians 7:4, “Great is my glorying on your behalf.” Do not these passages obtain a heightened significance if we regard them as delicate allusions to the forcible claim to authority in the previous letter, taking the sting out of the “glorying” by giving it a changed application? Similarly, when St. Paul says (2 Corinthians 7:16), “I have confidence in you” (Θαῤῥῶ ἐν ὑμῖν), is he not thinking of his earlier statement in 2 Corinthians 10:1, “I have confidence against you" (Θαῤῥῶ εἰς ὑμᾶς)? Or again, when he says, in 2 Corinthians 1:15, “And in this confidence (πεποιθήσει) I was minded to come to you,” is he not deliberately using again, in a pleasant sense, the phrase which he had used unpleasantly in 2 Corinthians 10:2, “I beseech you that I may not, when present, show courage (θαῤῥῆσαι) with the confidence (πεποιθἡσει) wherewith I count to be bold against some”? At the same time, it must be recognized that it is impossible to maintain the older form of this theory which suggested that these four chapters are the whole of the “severe letter.” The sufficient proof of this is that it is plain, from 2 Corinthians 2:5-10, that the “severe letter” had been largely directed against some definite person at Corinth, and there is no trace of this in 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13. This fact was rightly used as a decisive argument against Hausrath, but it has no force against Kennedy’s hypothesis that 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 is not the whole, but only the concluding part of the “severe letter,” and that the earlier chapters which are now lost dealt with the case of St. Paul’s opponent.
Thus the result of this complicated argument is to establish the great probability of the view that 2 Corinthians is not a single Epistle, but fragments of at least two Epistles, the last four chapters representing the end of the “severe letter”—which was really St. Paul’s Third Epistle to the Corinthians—and the first nine being the letter which he wrote from Macedonia in joy at the success which had attended the “severe letter” and its bearer, Titus. But when one accepts this fact, and couples it with the hypothesis (see p.
It must be remembered that we have no textual evidence at all for the first stage of the growth of the Corpus Paulinum. What we have is a collection of Epistles, from all Churches which had any, in the form in which it came to be generally recognized in the great Church. But there was an earlier period in which the individual Churches were busy in collecting Pauline material from their own archives, and in supplementing this from other communities. The combination of the “severe letter” and the “grateful letter” must have been made in the very beginning, as soon in fact as any copy of them existed at all. Dr. Kennedy suggests that this may have been at the time when Clement wrote to the Corinthians, and drew their attention to their Pauline archives. This is, of course, merely a suggestion of what may have, not what must have happened, but it serves to show that imaginable circumstances may well have arisen which called the attention of the Corinthians to fragments of Pauline letters, which had long lain unheeded in their archives so that no one remembered exactly what they were, and scribes, copying for the first time these new treasures, combined into the form of a single complete letter, what were really the fragments of at least two incomplete ones.
(4) THE VISITS OF TITUS TO CORINTH The three passages in which the visits of Titus to Corinth are referred to in 2 Corinthians are the following:—
(α) “For even when we were come into Macedonia … God comforted us by the coming of Titus, and not by his coming only, but also by the comfort wherewith he was comforted in you, while he told us your longing, your mourning, your zeal for me; so that I rejoiced yet more. … Therefore we have been comforted: and in our comfort we joyed the more exceedingly for the joy of Titus, because his spirit hath been refreshed by you all” (2 Corinthians 7:5-13). From this passage it is plain that Titus joined St. Paul in Macedonia, and brought a good report. Those who take the view advocated above as to the “severe letter” will probably also agree that the most natural interpretation of the facts is afforded by the supposition that Titus was the bearer of the “severe letter,” and that the welcome change in the attitude of the Corinthians was effected by the combined influence of the letter and of its bearer.
(β) A further reference to this visit is sometimes found in 2 Corinthians 12:17 ff.: “Did I take advantage of you by any one of them whom I have sent unto you? I asked Titus to go, and I sent the brother with him. Did Titus take any advantage of you? Walked we not by the same Spirit, in the same steps?” That this passage is in some way connected with the visit of Titus from which he returned to Macedonia is not disputed, but the nature of the connection differs according to the view taken of the relation of 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 to 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15. On the assumption that these two sections are both part of the same letter, written after Titus had joined St. Paul in Macedonia, the most probable and generally held hypothesis is that St. Paul is referring to Titus’ conduct on the visit from which he had just returned, and perhaps that the chance of “taking advantage” of them, from which he refrained, is in some way connected with the “collection for the saints” which figured so largely in St. Paul’s programme at this period. This latter part is, as will be seen, very doubtful, but for the rest this is the only possible theory for those who reject the partition theory.
If the partition be accepted, and 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 be identified with the “severe letter,” clearly the reference in this passage cannot be to Titus’ conduct during the visit from which he returned to Macedonia, for ex hypothesi this visit had not yet been made. In this case, St. Paul is rather seeking to commend Titus as his representative, who will be the bearer of the “severe letter.” The meaning, then, of the whole passage from 2 Corinthians 12:15 is that he himself never was pecuniarily burdensome to the Corinthians, and that the same was true of his representative, Titus. He says in effect, “You know that from the beginning of my intercourse with the Corinthians, I have never had a penny’s profit from them, and the same is true of my representatives. Titus, who is now coming to you, has never made any profit. Can you deny that he always behaved in this respect in exactly the same way as I did myself?”
(γ) In 2 Corinthians 8:6 ff.: “We asked Titus that as he had made a beginning before, so he would also complete in you this grace also. … But thanks be to God, which putteth the same earnest care for you into the heart of Titus; for indeed he granted our request, yea, being himself very earnest, he went forth unto you of his own accord.” From the context it is clear that “this grace,” which Titus was to complete, was the “collection for the saints,” i.e. for the poor Christians in Jerusalem, for this is the subject of the whole of 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15. Thus it is in any case certain that the return of Titus from Macedonia to Corinth was connected with the “collection for the saints.” The question is, however, whether we ought to conclude from St. Paul’s language that Titus had been busy with the same question on his previous visit. Purely linguistic exegesis does not give much help on this point. The expression, “this grace also” (καὶ τὴν χάριν ταύτην), seems to suggest that Titus is going to do something which has not been done previously, and the repetition of the phrase in the next verse points in the same direction. On the other hand, it may be urged, when Titus was asked to “complete” (ὲπιτελέσαι) something, it is implied that he had already made a beginning in the same direction. This is, however, not necessary, and the truth is that the sentence is ambiguous because “this grace also” may be regarded as explaining the addition which Titus had to make to that which he had begun (προενήρξατο)—different in kind from his previous work, which needed this addition to complete it (ὲπιτελέσαι); or it may be regarded merely as indicating the point at which his work—fully begun already—needed carrying out a little further in the same direction in order to be perfected.
Thus the nicer lexical criticism gives no certain answer to the question, and we are driven back on general considerations, and our knowledge of the “collection for the saints” from other sources. We know from both the Epistles and the Acts that St. Paul was busy with a collection from all his Churches which he proposed to send or take up to Jerusalem. He had already arranged with the Corinthians to take their proper share in his work (1 Corinthians 16:1 ff.), and was therefore able to boast in 2 Corinthians 9:2 that Achaia had been ready the previous year. At the same time, it is clear that he felt by no means sure that this boast was based on strict fact,—if Achaia had really been ready, there would have been no need to send Titus, or to exhort the Corinthians not to fail him. So far, then, there is no doubt but that the Corinthian collection had already been begun; but it is exceedingly probable that the period of general disturbance in the Church at Corinth, to which 2 Corinthians testifies, reduced the work of collection to a standstill. Is it conceivable that St. Paul would have sent Titus at this crisis to reduce the Corinthians to subjection, armed with the “severe letter,” and at the same time told him to collect subscriptions? It is far more likely that St. Paul left the whole financial question in abeyance until he knew whether the combined effect of Titus’ visit and his own severe letter would bring the Corinthians to a better frame of mind.
If we accept the view that the “severe letter” which Titus took with him to Corinth is either lost, or to be identified with 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13, there is no difficulty in believing that Titus returned to Corinth in connection with the collection, and that he had not previously taken any measures in its direction.
Those, however, who hold the view that the “severe letter” was 1 Corinthians, are bound, in the light of 1 Corinthians 16:1, to assume that Titus dealt with the matter on his first visit, and they then naturally explain 2 Corinthians 12:18 (“Did Titus take any advantage of you?”) as a reference to his conduct in this connection. For such an opinion there is little valid argument; but it is, of course, found in all commentaries or introductions which identify the “severe letter” with 1 Corinthians, as well as in some others which, though they have abandoned this identification, still think that Titus dealt with the matter of the collection on his first visit—not seeing that this view is merely the result of an identification which they do not any longer accept, is in itself contrary to the probabilities of the case, and is not required by the verbal exegesis of the passages in 2 Corinthians germane to the question.
(5) THE REPORT OF TITUS The report of Titus, so far as it is known to us, may be represented thus: “There was a meeting of the community, and under the influence of the ‘severe letter’ the offender was condemned, and sentenced to a punishment which was approved of by the majority.” The first question is, who was the offender, and what was his offence? The one thing which is here certain is that no confident answer can ever be given. Various lines of probability can be marked out, but the choice between them is almost impossible. It is obviously possible that the partizanship mentioned in 1 Corinthians contains the germ of many of the factors in the situation described in 2 Corinthians. 2 Corinthians—especially 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 —seems largely occupied with the defence of St. Paul’s authority, and this may have been impugned by any of the parties mentioned in the First Epistle. If the existence of a “Christ party” be accepted, it is possible that a reference to it may be seen in 2 Corinthians 10:7, “If any man trusteth that he is in Christ, let him consider this again with himself, that even as he is Christ’s, so also are we.” If so, we must suppose that the main cause of the dissensions was the development of the Christ party, and possibly that the leader of it was the offender who was punished.
Another line which has often been suggested is that the offender was the man who had taken his father’s wife, and the father is sometimes regarded as the offended party. This also is not impossible, but there is no evidence to prove it: it is merely a guess. Or it might be thought that the root of the evil is to be sought in the tendency to litigation mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:1 ff., and that the meeting of the community mentioned in 2 Corinthians 2:6 represents the final submission of both parties to St. Paul’s opinion that the community ought to judge matters of dispute, and not allow them to be brought before the heathen courts. Once more, the suggestion is not unattractive, but unsupported by evidence.
Still less is it possible to form any clear view as to the nature of the punishment inflicted on the offender: the only thing certain is that it was not exclusion from the community, because St. Paul speaks of the desirability of receiving him with kindliness.
More light can perhaps be thrown on the question of the relationship of the majority who fixed the punishment of the offender to the minority who disapproved of their decision. According to the view, formerly so generally held, that 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 was addressed to a rebellious minority, which had not been convinced by Titus, there is no alternative to the interpretation which regards the majority as St. Paul’s friends, and the minority as his opponents. But on the partition theory of 2 Corinthians this exegesis is unnecessary, and a closer consideration of the exact wording of the crucial passage points rather to the view that the minority was the party of St. Paul, or at all events wished for a severer treatment of the offender than the majority had voted. This passage is 2 Corinthians 2:5-7, “If any hath caused sorrow, he hath caused sorrow, not to me, but in part (that I press not too heavily) to you all. Sufficient to such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that ye should contrariwise rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you to confirm your love toward him.” The most natural exegesis, and that which gives the most force to the separate phrases of this passage, is that the offender had been unanimously condemned,—he had caused sorrow to them all,—that the majority had fixed an appropriate penalty, and that St. Paul is addressing the minority,—he distinguishes “the majority” from “you,”—who still cherished angry feelings towards the offender, in order to persuade them to acquiesce in the sentence of the majority, and not to press for heavier punishment. It is also fairly plain that the reason why this minority was still unsatisfied was a feeling of loyalty to St. Paul, who therefore emphasizes his own satisfaction with the action of the majority,—in other words, the “minority” of 2 Corinthians is most probably to be identified with the “party of Paul” of 1 Corinthians. This conclusion is supported by the fact that St. Paul says nothing at all about the justice of the sentence, but only defends its adequacy (ἱκανὸν τῳ τοιούτῳ, κ.τ.λ.). No one, then, denied that it was just, but there were those who doubted that it was adequate. Finally, the τοὐνάντιον (contrariwise) is only intelligible if we suppose that those of whom St. Paul is speaking did not propose to adopt a forgiving attitude.
Thus the most straightforward exegesis of this passage is that the minority were the Pauline party, who thought that their master’s position demanded a severer sentence than that which the majority had inflicted. On the supposition that 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 does not belong to 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15, but is really part of the severe letter, which helped to bring about that state of feeling in the community which led up to the general condemnation of the offender and his punishment by the vote of the majority, there is no difficulty in accepting this exegesis. On the other hand, it is almost impossible of acceptance by those who reject the partition theory, and regard 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 as addressed to a still rebellious minority. They are forced to adopt the view that the majority, not the minority, were the party of St. Paul, that the “you” spoken of directly after “the majority” (… ἡ ἐπιτιμία ἡ ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων, ὥστε ὑμᾶς, κ.τ.λ., 2 Corinthians 2:6 f.) is to be identified with, not distinguished from the majority, and that when St. Paul said that the sentence was sufficient, he meant that the majority (thus identified with the “you”) might now be content to forgive the offender, as the minority wished them to do. This exegesis seems in several points unnatural and forced: it is, however, perhaps not absolutely inadmissable, and is probably the only possible view if 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 be regarded as directed against a rebellious minority.
It is perhaps not unfair to point out that it is an indirect argument of considerable value in favour of the “partition theory” that it enables a natural and easy exegesis to be given in so many places which are obscure and difficult on any other hypothesis.
It is now possible to piece together the results of this examination of single problems, and by using the results which seem most probable, either in themselves or in relation to other points, to give a connected description of the course of events from the sending of 1 Corinthians to the second mission of Titus with 1 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15.
Soon after 1 Corinthians had been sent, Timothy rejoined St. Paul, and reported the result of his mission and the general condition of the community at Corinth. It was not a pleasing story which he had to tell: the partizanship, which “those of Chloe” had mentioned, instead of disappearing had increased; there was an open hostility to St. Paul’s personal authority; possibly the case of incestuous marriage continued to be a scandal, and the disagreements which had led to litigation continued. It was plain that energetic measures were called for, and St. Paul went over to Corinth as soon as he could find an opportunity—that is to say, probably within two or three days. Even this failed: the Corinthians would not listen, and St. Paul, seeing that he was doing no good, and probably also knowing that he was needed in Ephesus, went back, declaring that if he came again he would not spare, but would adopt strong measures. At Ephesus he penned a severe letter, of which 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-13 is the latter portion, and asked Titus to take it, and at the same time to try to bring the Corinthians to a better state of mind. Titus went, and the combination of his words with St. Paul’s letter was successful. A general meeting of the community was held, and St. Paul’s authority was recognized. It was agreed that the offending member, who was the cause of the trouble, was to be condemned, but there was a difference of opinion as to the punishment which should be meted out to him. In the end, however, the majority inclined to mildness, leaving a minority still demanding severer measures, or at all events not prepared to treat the offender with friendliness. This was no doubt lamentable, but there can be no doubt but that in the main the situation had been enormously improved, and that Titus’ mission and the “severe letter” had been completely justified by their results. Titus, therefore, left Corinth to return to St. Paul. In the meantime St. Paul had left Asia—possibly we ought to put, at this point, the uproar in connection with Demetrius and the worshippers of Artemis—and made his way first to Troas, and afterwards to Macedonia. Here Titus found him, and relieved his fears by his favourable report. Immediately he wrote 1 Corinthians 1:1-24, 2 Corinthians 2:1-17, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, 2 Corinthians 4:1-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1-21, 2 Corinthians 6:1-18, 2 Corinthians 7:1-16, 2 Corinthians 8:1-24, 2 Corinthians 9:1-15, and sent Titus once more back to Corinth with it, to urge his over-zealous friends to forgive the offender, and also to pick up the threads of the organization for the “collection for the saints,” which the troubles in the Church had broken off. St. Paul himself was busy in the work for this collection in Macedonia, and he hoped that Titus would act as his representative in Achaia, to work up the methods which he had suggested in 1 Corinthians 16:1 ff., so that when he reached Corinth himself there would be no further delay. To complete the story we must turn to Acts 20:3. From this we learn that St. Paul reached Corinth in the winter, and that he stayed there three months. He intended to sail thence to Syria, but at the last moment a plot was laid against him by the Jews, and he returned through Macedonia. What was this plot? Was it entirely apart from the previous troubles in the Church? We are absolutely ignorant, and with this sinister episode the curtain falls on the Christian community at Corinth, not to rise again until forty years later, when fresh quarrels drew forth remonstrances from the Church at Rome in what we usually call the First Epistle of Clement.
Here, then, we have the skeleton of the story of St. Paul and the Corinthians: to clothe it with flesh it is now necessary to consider the real nature of the problems raised by the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians, and the character of the opposition to St. Paul which is revealed in 2 Corinthians. THE PROBLEMS OF THOUGHT AND PRACTICE REVEALED BY THE EPISTLES
These problems may in general be described as being concerned with the questions put before St. Paul by the Corinthians. We have to ask in each case, why such questions were raised, and to deal with the much-disputed question of the nature of the opposition to St. Paul. The points at issue may conveniently be divided into the following classes:—
(1) Sexual questions.
(2) Questions relating to Inspiration by the Holy Spirit.
(3) The Resurrection of the Dead.
(4)The opposition to St. Paul. The second of these headings covers three of the questions put to St. Paul—as to things offered to idols, as to spiritual gifts, and as to the arrangement of worship, including the Eucharist—but they are all so closely connected by the idea of inspiration, that they are best treated together.
(1) SEXUAL QUESTIONS
Nothing is more natural than that questions of sexual morality should be important in Corinth, for it was famous both for the opportunities which it afforded for every sort of immorality, and for the manner in which these were brought into connection with cultus (especially in the worship of Aphrodite) of an originally Oriental and frequently obscene nature. Thus it is not strange that we find the Epistles revealing a series of practical problems connected with sex, and pointing to the existence of two divergent lines of thought, one ascetic and the other libertine.
These practical problems may be divided into two classes, relating to fornication and to marriage; and the latter subdivided into the questions of (α) Marriage in general. (β) Divorce; (γ) Re-marriage; (δ) Virgins.
Fornication.—In three places in 1 Corinthians St. Paul deals with the question of fornication: 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20; 1 Corinthians 10:18. In the first of these three he is dealing with a special case, which would apparently be more correctly described as incest. What exactly it was is a problem which belongs rather to the exegesis of the Epistle; it is not for our purpose very important. In the second and third, however, he speaks generally, and it is clear that fornication was really a serious evil in the Christian community. The problem for us is to understand how this can have been the case. It is obviously not simply an instance of human weakness; but that the Corinthians really had a low standard of morality on the subject, and defended their practices as not incompatible with Christianity. The solution is to be found in 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 1 Corinthians 10:8. On the one hand, some of the Corinthians had argued that “all things were lawful,” and that fornication is as much a purely physical, morally indifferent action as eating and drinking are. This is clearly the background of the argument, “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats,” which is probably a reference to, if not a quotation from, the statements of the Corinthians. St. Paul combats this argument, and maintains the permanence of the “body,” as against the impermanence of the “belly” (1 Corinthians 6:13 ff.). The whole contention of St. Paul is only intelligible if we grasp the fact that he is reasoning with people who say, “The body does not matter: what we eat and drink does not affect the soul: and the same thing is true of all physical functions.” slightly different, but cognate point of view is revealed by 1 Corinthians 10:8. Here St. Paul is speaking primarily of things offered to idols, and 1 Corinthians 10:1-33 is explicable only if we see that it is a warning against the view that Christians are safe because they have been initiated into the Christian mysteries. St. Paul combats this view by showing that safety was not obtained by the Israelites, who were the types of Christians, although they also had, typically, enjoyed the mysteries of Baptism and the Eucharist. Therefore, he argues, we must avoid the things which, as the history of the “types” shows, can be fatal to us as they were to them. The importance of these facts, simple and short though their description may be, is considerable. They are the proof that over against a scrupulous and ascetic party there was another which went to the other extreme, regarding the Christian as a “spiritual” person, who by initiation into the mysteries was raised above carnal considerations, and could not be affected by anything which he did with his body. To modern minds there is something extraordinary in the suggestion that the spiritual freedom of the Christian could be so extended. But it must be remembered that the Graeco-Roman point of view was quite different. Not only was fornication—for men—considered a matter of small or no importance, but it actually was regarded in some cases as possessing a religious value. The prostitutes in the temple of Aphrodite at Corinth were not, in their own opinion, immoral; nor were they influenced by immoral motives, but by a religious impulse.
Corruptio optimi pessima; and it is in the twentieth century, in the West of Europe, difficult to realize the possibility of a religious impulse expressing itself in immoral acts, but the fact is nevertheless indisputable that it has formerly done so. The point is that cultus—the ritual expression of religious impulse—is not a measure of religion only, but also of other elements in the nature of the person who is trying to express this impulse. Go back two thousand years and you will find that the nature of many men was such that they attempted to express, and to stimulate, their religious life by sexual excesses: or, if you will travel in space instead of in time, the same thing can be found to-day in Africa, or even in some of the lower Indian cults. Go back still further in time, or penetrate to still lower depths of primitive human nature, as it still survives in Africa, and you will find men arousing and satisfying their religious instincts by human sacrifice; and if you reach to the last depths, you will find that there is a religious basis even to the horrid rites of cannibalism. Primitive man is not only religious, but he is also obscene, cruel, and superstitious, and these evil characteristics always show themselves in combination with his religious rites.
Nothing comes out more clearly in the history of religions, than that religion, in the attempt to work out forms of worship, has had to deal with three enemies—cruelty, obscenity, and superstition. The first of these had been practically conquered, for civilized nations, before our era; the conquest of the second was the especial task of primitive Christianity. It was necessary for the Church, which inherited the high moral standard of Jewish cultus, to fight over again in the West the battle for a pure worship, which the prophets of Israel had won for the Jews six hundred years before. The struggle is so remote from our generation, that it is hard to realize that our forefathers had to fight hard to prevent Christian culture from becoming corrupted, but clear traces of the struggle can be found in the Apocalypse, in Jude, in 2 Peter, in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius, the Pistis Sophia, and minor authorities. In all of them we can see the struggle against various forms of obscene heresies,
Marriage.—(a.) Marriage in General.—As to marriage itself, it is not difficult to see the background from which the questions, which St. Paul answers, must have arisen. Some of the Corinthians were opposed altogether to marriage (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2); and some were anxious to deprive it of any sexual significance (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:3-7). Yet there was no unanimity on the question, and therefore it was necessary to consult St. Paul, who adopted the intermediate position of recognizing the propriety of marriage, and that in the fullest sense, though he recommended the ascetic life to those who could endure it, whether married or unmarried. To reconstruct with precision the arguments of the ascetic party is impossible, but we shall probably not be wrong in holding that two considerations played the main part. In the first place, there was the feeling that the “time was short,” and that the Kingdom of God would belong to those who “neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels.”This view was very strong in early Christianity, and in some circles was carried so far as to exclude the permanence of sex in the kingdom. It is possible that some of St. Paul’s own teaching may have been interpreted in this way. When, for instance, he said that in “Christ Jesus there was neither male nor female, the conclusion might be drawn that he meant that sex would not exist in the Kingdom. This is also the view which probably lies behind the apocryphal saying of Christ in II. Clement 12, “For the Lord Himself being asked by some one, when His kingdom should come, said. When the Two shall be One, and the Outside as the Inside, and the Male with the Female, neither Male nor Female,” though the writer of II. Clement himself gives a different explanation. In the second place, there was undoubtedly a strong ascetic feeling, at all events partly—and, perhaps, chiefly—due to reaction against the general immorality of the Greek world, and of Corinth in particular. This feeling was not specifically Christian; it was found among the Essenes, who were absolutely celibate, and also among the Therapeutae, whose headquarters were in Alexandria. Especially important, however, are the Stoics, whose doctrine on the question of marriage was that it was an association for the mutual comfort of husband and wife, who stood on an equality of rights. Against the low level of morality in the Empire the Cynics and Stoics protested and preached as strongly as Jews or Christians. It is doubtful whether they can be said to have encouraged celibacy, but certainly they enjoined continence. It is, therefore, quite natural that there was a celibate party in Corinth. In the same way, it is easy to understand the existence of the party, to which St. Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 7:3-7, holding that marriage in the full sense was undesirable, and recommending that those who were already married should wholly abstain from marital relations. This feeling was, no doubt, the natural outcome of the general belief, both among Jews and Greeks, that all sexual relations were in themselves, if not sinful, at least “not holy,” so that they demanded ritual purification before a state of “holiness” could be regained. It was part of the general Christian position that Christians are, and must remain “holy” (ἅγιοι is almost a technical name for Christians), so that those who still retained the semi-physical conception of holiness naturally were inclined to regard all sexual intercourse as forbidden to Christians.
(β) Divorce.—This question arose, so far as we can see, from two reasons. In the first place, there was the ascetic tendency mentioned above, which led some Christians to regard marriage as immoral, and, therefore, to regard divorce as desirable for Christians. Against this St. Paul quotes the absolute prohibition of the Lord for husbands and wives to leave each other. In the second place, there was the question of mixed marriages, or, rather, of married couples of which only one was converted to Christianity. Some of the Corinthians were inclined to think that it was the duty of Christians, under such circumstances, to separate from all association with the heathen, and it is easy to imagine that St. Paul’s “previous letter” (see pp.
(γ) Re-marriage.—From 1 Corinthians 7:39 ff., it is plain that the question of a second marriage for widows had been raised. But it does not appear that it was a point on which there was any very lively controversy.
(δ) Virgins.—In 1 Corinthians 7:25-38, St. Paul discusses the question of “Virgins.” There are many difficulties in reconstructing from his language exactly what or who these virgins were, and the question will probably always be obscure. The best way of approaching the subject is to take the crucial passages from St. Paul, and note the exegetical difficulties. A translation is here insufficient by itself, as it has a tendency to obscure the points at issue. I therefore give Greek and English in parallel columns:—
Περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων ἐπιταγὴν Κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω, γνώμην δὲ δίδωμι ὡς ἐλεημένος ὑπὸ Κυρίου πιστὸς εἴναι. Νομίζω οὖν τοῦτο καλὸν ὑπάρχειν διὰ τὴν ἐνεστῶσαν ἀνάγκην, ὅτι καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ οὕτως εἶναι. δέδεσαι γυναικί; μὴ ζήτει λύσιν· λέλυσαι ἀπὸ γυναικόσ; μὴ ζήτει γυναῖκα. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ γαμήσῃς, οὐχ ἥμαρτες, καὶ ἔαν γήμῃ ἡ παρθένος, οὐχ ἥμαρτεν … εἰ δὲ τις ἀσχημονεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν παρθένον αὐτοῦ νομίζει, ἐὰν ᾖ ὑπέρακμος, καὶ οὔτως ὀφείλει γίνεσθαι, ὃ θέλει ποιείτω· οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει· γαμείτωσαν. ὃς δὲ έστηκεν ἐν τῇ καρδιᾴ αὐτοῦ ἑδραῖος, μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην, ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος, καὶ τοῦτο κέκρικεν ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ καρδίᾳ, τηρεῖν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρθένον, καλῶς ποιήσει. ὣστε καὶ ὁ γαμίζων τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρθένον καλῶς ποιεῖ, καὶ ὁ μὴ γαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιήσει. | “Now concerning the virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give my judgment as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I think, therefore, that this is good, by reason of the present necessity, that it is good for a man to be as he is. Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not release. Art thou released from a wife? Seek not a wife. But even if thou married, thou didst not sin; and if the virgin married, she did not sin. … But if any man think that he is unseemly towards his virgin, if he be passionate, and ‘it must be so,’ let him do what he wishes: he doth not sin: let them marry. But he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath determined in his own heart to keep his virgin, shall do well. So that also he that giveth his virgin in marriage, doeth well, and he that giveth her not shall do better." |
It will be noted that the translation here given departs in three important points from that of the usual English version. (1) The word “daughters” after “virgins,” is omitted in 1 Corinthians 7:36 ff. (2) ὑπέρακμος is translated “passionate” instead of “pass the flower of her age,” and is made to apply to the man, not to the virgin. (3) In 1 Corinthians 7:38 ὥστε καὶ ὁ γαμίζων is translated “so also he that giveth in marriage,” instead of “so both he that giveth in marriage,” and it is further suggested in the footnote that γαμίζων perhaps means “marries,” not “gives in marriage.”
These differences may fairly be said to sum up the problem. The English version, following a tradition, which is at least as old as Chrysostom, conceives that the situation of which St. Paul is speaking is merely that of a father with unmarried daughters, whom he may or may not give in marriage. The suggestion is that the Corinthians were divided in opinion as to whether it was ever desirable to allow daughters to marry, and that St. Paul expressed the opinion that the matter was one for the individual conscience of the father in question, but that the better course, when no scruple was felt, was to prevent marriage. The difficulty of this interpretation is in 1 Corinthians 7:36. Here γαμείτωσαν must mean “let them marry.” Who? The virgin is one of the parties to the marriage, and the natural view is that the man in question is the man who “thinks that he is unseemly towards his virgin,” and that it is he who is ὑπέρακμος. In this case, ὑπέρακμος means “over-passionate,” taking ἀκμὴ in the sense, which it has in Constitutiones Apostolicae, 3:2,of passion, not that of youth. Furthermore, the view that ὑπέρακμος refers to the man is supported by the parallelism of the sentences.
εἰ δὲ τις ἀσχημονεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν | ο͂ς δὲ ἔστηκεν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, |
παρθένον αὐτοῦ νομίζει, | αὐτου έδραῖος, |
ἐὰν ἦ ὑπέρακμος, | μὴ ἔχων ἀνάγκην, |
καὶ οὕτως ὀφείλει γινέσθαι, | ἐξουσίαν δὲ ἔχει περὶ τοῦἰδίου |
θελήματος, etc. |
It is clear here that there is a correspondence between the two cases, and that the antithesis is between the man “who can” and the “man who cannot.” St. Paul is not always attentive to details of style, but the point is certainly not without importance. It is not, however, essential to the argument; we do not really know what ὑπέρακμος means, and its translation cannot be the real basis of the argument. The main point is that St. Paul says, that under certain circumstances the virgin and some one else may marry; as the circumstance which he puts in the foreground is the frame of mind of the man whose virgin she is, presumably he is the “some one else.” But if it be conceded that γαμείτωσαν must mean “let the virgin and ‘the man who cannot,’ marry,” it is plain that the man in question is not the father of the virgin, and that the translation “virgin daughter” must be abandoned. It will presently be shown what the relation between the man and the virgin probably was; but it is first desirable to consider the question of γαμίζω. The difficulty is that the word is not found outside the New Testament. Strictly speaking, it ought to mean, as the old grammarians recognized, “give in marriage,” according to the rule by which verbs in —ίζω are causative. But there are many exceptions; γνωρίζω, for instance, means “I know,” ἐλπίζω means “I hope,” χρονίζω, “I tarry,” ὑβρίζω, “I insult,” etc. Some of these words are, indeed, possibly not degenerated causatives, but doublets formed by a false analogy from aorists in —ισα; so, ἐγάμησα (in pronunciation indistinguishable from ἐγάμισα) might give rise to a false present, γαμίζω.
It is extremely probable that this curious side-track of history leads us to the true explanation of 1 Corinthians 7:1-40. The suggestion is that men and women had made a practice of living together under a vow of virginity, and that, in some cases, the situation was proving too great a strain for human nature. Under these circumstances, St. Paul’s advice was sought. His answer is, “Let them marry.” At the same time, he does not agree with those who apparently had doubted—as the later Church also doubted—the desirability of the custom altogether; for those who can keep to their purpose he regards it as good. But the question is, How many cases does he distinguish? Clearly, in 1 Corinthians 7:36, ending with “let them marry,” he deals with the case of a man and a “virgin” who are neither of them contented with a spiritual marriage, and desire to join in wedlock with each other. In the earlier verses, however, he seems to be dealing with the case of possible marriage, for the man or the virgin, with some third party; possibly we can also conclude from this passage that this “spiritual marriage” was regarded, at least by some of the Corinthians, as not incompatible with a real marriage. Here, also, St. Paul clearly sides with those who admitted marriage both for the man and for the “virgin.” The final case is, perhaps, contained in 1 Corinthians 7:38, and alludes to the possibility of giving the “virgin” in marriage to some one else. That the details of any solution to the problem presented by 1 Corinthians 7:25-38 are uncertain, will be admitted by all who have really considered it at all closely; but the view that has been presented by Achelis seems to present fewer difficulties than any other, and recent commentaries all show a tendency to accept it. If so, we have to consider that the background of the chapter is the existence of a class of men and women who vowed themselves to live together not in wedlock, but in virginity. Such an institution was clearly the result of the ascetic tendency mentioned on p. 182, and the problem arose from the conflict between this institution and human nature. The controversy as to the relation of Christianity to sexual questions lasted for many generations, and it would be far from the truth to suppose no false steps were made by the Church on this extremely difficult question. The institution of “spiritual marriage” was clearly a false step, and was comparatively soon retracted. It would be out of place here to discuss the later course of development on other points, but it is worth noting that the ascetic element in early Christian teaching is being shown more and more clearly by modern research to have been far more widespread and to be far more primitive than comparatively recent writers have allowed. The view that marriage is a concession to human weakness, and incompatible with the highest Christian ideal, is probably primitive. It was clearly the view of St. Paul when he wrote to Corinth (even though a somewhat more liberal opinion is perhaps expressed in the Epistle to the Ephesians, of which, however, the authenticity is doubted by many quite cautious critics), and there was clearly a party in Corinth who thought that he conceded too much. If we go on to the succeeding centuries we find the extremest asceticism consistently preached as the counsel of perfection. I cannot see how it is possible to deny that the general teaching of the Christian Church from St. Paul to the Reformation is that the life of the celibate is higher qua talis than that of the married Christian.
(2) QUESTIONS RELATING TO INSPIRATION BY THE HOLY SPIRIT The questions of the Corinthians concerning things offered to idols, spiritual gifts, and the regulation of worship, including the Eucharist, all depend on the general belief as to the spirit-world which obtained in the first century.
According to popular opinion, the world was full of spirits (πνεύματα or δαιμόνες) good and bad, which were able to take possession of, or to obsess, not only human beings, but even inanimate objects. One of the main reasons for which the ordinary man took part in religious ceremonies was to avoid obsession by evil daemons and to secure obsession or inspiration by good spirits. The various Mysteries were largely regarded from this point of view. Moreover, when this inspiration had once been obtained the religious services remained valuable, because they afforded the means by which the inspired person allowed the spirit which was in him to speak to others, and communicate the will of the gods.
These spirits or daemons were beings intermediate between gods and men. Some of the gods even had originally been daemons, and some of the daemons were the spirits of the dead men who had gained promotion by the distinction of their careers on earth.
Part of the work of the Messiah was to be their destruction, but until the “Kingdom” came they wandered through the world, seeking re-incarnation, and causing sickness, but yielding to the power of exorcism. Of these three points the first affords an exact parallel between the angels and the beneficent daemons. The second affords a parallel in so far as the “Spirit of Jahveh” is parallel to the “spirit” of the god imparted in the Mysteries, or speaking through the oracles and prophets. It is also remarkable that just as the distinction in Jewish theology between Jahveh and the Spirit of Jahveh is not consistently sharply drawn, so too, in the magical papyri, the distinction between the god and his spirit is sometimes made and sometimes ignored. Moreover, just as the Greek was vague as to the distinction between a daemon ancillary to the god, and the spirit effluent from the god himself, so among the Jews there was probably a tendency to confuse the Spirit of Jahveh with the Angel of Jahveh, and the Angel of Jahveh with the angels in general. Thus in Jewish and Christian circles, there was at first a tendency to hesitate whether to speak of “The Spirit” or the “Spirits.” So far there is a very close resemblance between Jewish and Greek thought. The difference is really only to be found in connection with the doctrine of God. For the Jahveh of the Jews was not parallel with the gods of the Greeks, as, for instance, Plutarch conceived them, but with the Absolute, or with the Logos, who was above them all, and from whom all being, divine, daemonic, or human, derived its origin.
According, then, to the ancient view of the universe the world was full of spirits, good and bad. How was man to avoid the bad and gain the good? The universal answer was that there were various acts or ceremonies by means of which intercourse with the spirits was rendered possible. These acts belonged in the main to every kind of human function. Eating and drinking were especially regarded from this point of view. There was always a danger that an evil spirit would be attracted by food and drink, and endeavour to enjoy it by obsessing the person who ate it. Hence, according to Porphyry, the symptoms of indigestion. “Every house,” says he, “is full of them, and on this account when they are going to call down the gods, they purify the house first and cast those daemons out. Our bodies also are full of them, for they especially delight in certain kinds of food. So when we are eating they approach and sit close to our body; and this is the reason of the purifications, not chiefly on account of the Gods, but in order that these evil daemons may depart. But most of all they delight in blood and impure meats, and enjoy these by entering into those who use them. For universally the vehemence of the desire towards anything, and the impulse of the lust of the spirit, is intensified from no cause than their presence, and they also force men to fall into inarticulate noises and flatulence by sharing the same enjoyment with them.”For this reason food had to be protected by being given up to the power of some more powerful and beneficent being; it was consecrated—sacrificed—to some god, and then it was safe: no evil spirit would dare to touch it. Or, in the alternative, it was possible to consecrate and protect the eater; for in the same way, if he were already in the power of some god, no evil spirit would be able to approach him. Those who had been initiated in the Mysteries were safe from evil spirits. In this way evil spirits could be avoided.
How could good spirits be gained? This was especially the object of the Mysteries, and just as evil spirits entered by means of food, so also did the good ones. The sacrificial meals of the Mystery Religions were, at least from one point of view, means of gaining obsession by a good spirit connected with or even identified with the god of the Mystery in question. Men and women ate with the god in order to be taken possession of; or they went to the temple and lived there for the same purpose. Nor was this all: not only could they eat with the god, but they could actually eat food in which the god was, and so eat the god himself. Probably there was much vagueness of thought as to whether the god was in the food, or was joining in the eating of it: but there is ample evidence for both points of view in the Greek world. The former theory is especially common, and hence it was customary to speak of the “table” (τραπέζα) of the god, and of “laying a place for him” (κλίνην στρῶσαι τῷ θεῷ). Moreover, from the story of Paulina it would seem that invitations to dinner in the temple of Isis sometimes included passing the night there. The still cruder theory that the god is present in the sacrificial food, and thus passes into the being of the worshipper is less widely, but quite sufficiently, attested. For this custom it is not easy to quote single passages, but the collected evidence from all sources provides overwhelming testimony for the view that one period in the development of cultus comprised two central beliefs: first, that the god was incarnate in various persons, especially royal persons; secondly, that the divine nature in them could be assimilated by eating them. Thus far back in the history of mankind it is probable that every race has passed through a period of the religious cannibalism which still survives in some parts of Central Africa. But many centuries ago among the Greek and Roman races, this savage rite was superseded by the custom of eating the representative of the god, either in the form of an animal, or of some other form of food in which he was regarded as incarnate. As civilization advanced the details became less and less crude, but the rite of “eating the god” still remained, and was, no doubt, inextricably mixed up with the cognate idea mentioned above of eating with the god. The exact point of view of Individuals was no doubt as “foggy” and confused as it always was on subjects of this nature which are concerned partly with a real spiritual experience and partly with an artificial intellectual explanation. The signs of possession by a good spirit were various: no doubt they were usually unobtrusive, the worshipper merely felt convinced that he had received benefit. But some times plainer symptoms could be observed in the form of r’estasy, prophecy, glossolalia, i.e. unintelligible speech, and visions. All of them differed very little from the signs of possession by an evil spirit, and it was often a matter on which opinion differed sharply whether the obsessed should he congratulated on his spiritual endowment, or exorcised to save him from the clutches of a daemon. The Things offered to Idols.—It is not difficult to see how Completely the belief in spirits or daemons is the background of this section. To reconstruct the precise opinions of St. Paul is indeed more difficult than to understand what he is discussing.
“Things offered to idols”(εὶδωλόθυτα) might be taken in at least two senses. From one point of view the greater Dart of the meat sold in the shops was “offered to idols,” as the animal from which it was taken had usually been consecrated to some god, even if it were only by the ceremonial burning of a few hairs. Thus, in this strict sense, to avoid eating things offered to idols was difficult, if not impossible. It would, however, appear that it was not quite impossible, for St. Paul implies that by making inquiry the Corinthians might be able to avoid such meat. But besides this, it was possible to use εἰδωλόθυτα with a restricted reference to actual participation in the sacrificial meals. As to these meals a misconception is easy. We are inclined to look on them as solemn religious services. Some of them no doubt were: but others probably resembled a dinner-party more closely than a church-service. It was the custom to issue invitations to dinner in the temple, and the fiction was that the god was himself the host. Thus “things offered to idols” had a social as well as a religious importance, and an attempt was made to combine physical satisfaction with “spiritual” edification. To avoid them altogether was difficult, and certainly would hinder social intercourse to an enormous extent.
Apparently, there were two opinions on the matter in Corinth: one party maintained that an idol was nothing, and that therefore things offered to idols had no importance: they thought that the whole matter was indifferent, and that Christian freedom justified them in doing as they wished. Another party held the opposite opinion and thought that, cost what it might, Christians ought to abstain absolutely from the contamination of things offered to idols. The strict school argued that to eat things offered to idols was a form of idolatry, and dangerous because of the daemons. The “enlightened” school argued that idols had no real existence, that the food was not really affected by being consecrated to the non-existent, and therefore that it really did not matter if Christians bought it in the market, or took part in meals at which it was eaten. But besides this the “enligntened” school also argued that, even admitting the possible influence of consecrated food on others, they were themselves safe because through the Christian Mysteries they had gained the protection of a higher power. This argument is implied by 1 Corinthians 10:1-33 where St. Paul retorts that they are no more safe than were the Israelites, the type of the Christians. The Israelites had all received the types of Baptism and Eucharist, in the crossing of the Red Sea, in the feeding on manna in the wilderness, and in drinking from the rock. Nevertheless, they fell, and the fall should be an example to Christians not to commit the same mistakes. The whole of this section in its context is only intelligible as directed against the argument that those who have been initiated into the Christian Mysteries may safely do anything they like,—they have attained safety (σωτηρία), which was the object of all the Mysteries. This difference of opinion between two parties in Corinth is clearly reflected in St. Paul’s advice, and explains its strange turns and apparent inconsistencies. This is especially marked in 1 Corinthians 10:14 ff. Here St. Paul is conceding to the scrupulous party the correctness of their objection to idolatry; but he is thinking all the time of the effect his words will have on the party of freedom, and therefore he turns to them and invites them to consider accurately the exact force of his admission. He quite accepts the propositions of the party of freedom that an idol is nothing, and that food sacrificed to idols has no especial value, but he does admit, as a concession to the scrupulous, that the sacrificial meals do contain the possibility of “infection” from daemons. The position is not wholly logical, for the Christian word εἰδωλόθυτον, as compared with the true Greek phrase ἱερόθυτον or θεόθυτον, implies the view that the heathen gods are illusions—without any real existence. But this sort of inconsistency is common to humanity. All of us must be aware that on many points our position is a wholly illogical combination of half-belief, half-scepticism, which we cover but do not justify by calling it an “open mind.” Do the Apostolic Decrees also lie behind this difference of opinion in Corinth? Certainly they are not quoted; but I see no reason to state definitely that they cannot have been known in Corinth. On the contrary, I think it is quite possible that they had been appealed to by the stricter party, and that St. Paul’s answer is intended as giving his view of the justification and meaning of the decree so far as things offered to idols are concerned. Still, this cannot be proved, and all that can be said as to the existence or non-existence of the decrees in Corinth is that neither can be established.
“Spiritual persons” (or “gifts”?).—When St. Paul begins 1 Corinthians 12:1-31 περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν, does he speak of persons or gifts? Obviously πνευματικῶν may have either meaning, but since in the immediate context St. Paul is discussing persons, not gifts, and the way to distinguish the true from the false πνευματικός, it is probably better to treat it as persons,” or what the Germans more conveniently term pneumatiker. But at all properly to appreciate the meaning of the word in the ancient world of thought, we must grasp the fact firmly that the Spirit was a concrete “something” or “some one.” Judged by modern standards, one might almost say it was material, and in popular thought it was probably regarded as belonging to the same category of substance as air, or sometimes as light. The point is that we are apt to use “spiritual” and “spirit” in the sense of a “frame of mind” (stimmung) which pays no special attention to carnal or material objects, and is busy with ideals. That is not what πνευματικὸς meant in the first century; it meant a man who was obsessed by a πνεῦμα which was not his own, but had come into him from without. The signs of this spiritual obsession were various, but they were chiefly ecstatic. That is to say, the proof of the existence of the spirit within was that the man did things which he otherwise could not do. This supernatural power might manifest itself in act or in word. The inspired person might develop powers of healing or do other miraculous deeds; the magical papyri show that this was as common in heathen circles as it was among Christians, and even extended to the resuscitation of the dead.
Thus the language of these inspired persons was not ordinary language. Sometimes it was intelligible, and sometimes it was unintelligible; in the former case it was prophecy, in the latter glossolalia. The difference between glossolalia and prophecy was only that glossolalia was unintelligible; it was a language which could only be understood by those to whom the Spirit gave the power of interpreting it. The picture of glossolalia given by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:1-49 can be compared with hostile pictures drawn by Celsus of Palestinian Christian prophets, and by Irenaeus of Marcosian prophetesses. In the strange words in the magical papyri we probably have references to glossolalia in heathen circles.
Besides these manifestations of the spirit through the acts and speech of the obsessed, there were also visual manifestations in which the πνευματικὸς saw visions—revelations or ἀποκαλύψεις—in which he was taken in the spirit to the hidden world. Here, again, there is no difference between the Christian and the heathen belief. St. Paul knew a man who was taken up into the third heaven, and Apuleius describes the experiences of Luciusi n the Mysteries of Isis. “I drew near,” says Lucius, “to the confines of death; I trod the threshold of Proserpine; I was borne through all the elements and returned. At midnight I saw the sun flashing with bright light; gods of the world above, gods of the world below, into their presence I came.” Whether Apuleius and St. Paul are either or both giving their own experience is questionable, but undoubtedly both believed in the genuineness of what they described. Nor did the Christians ever suggest that the heathen experience was different from their own; they only urged that it was due to an evil spirit instead of to a good spirit. This last point explains the importance of the first question which the Corinthians propounded. How were they to distinguish the πνευματικὸς who was inspired by a holy spirit, from the πνευματικὸς who was inspired by an evil spirit? Both did much the same things, but whereas he who was inspired by a holy spirit deserved the implicit obedience due to the infallible voice of God, or a good daemon, the other must be avoided, and attempts made to rid him of his obsession. It is also easy to see how fruitful a soil this general belief supplied for the later development of Christological doctrine. The Christian, especially the Christian prophet, was inspired and possessed by a holy spirit. This holy spirit came from his Lord and Saviour, Jesus. That seemed wholly natural: if Jesus was a Redeemer-God, of course His Spirit was given to those who shared in His mysteries. But was this Spirit a spirit which had inspired Jesus? or had Jesus become a spirit or daemon? or had He from the beginning been a spirit? and similar questions were at first not asked, though the development of Christian doctrine showed that they were raised later.
Thus the practical question arose how the πνευματικὸς who was inspired by the “Spirit of Jesus” could be distinguished from the πνευματικός who was inspired by an evil spirit. That is the problem which St. Paul had to face, and he solved it by saying that if the πνευματικος recognized Jesus as Lord, he was inspired by a holy spirit;but that if he said “Jesus is accursed,” he was not inspired by a spirit of God. There he leaves the question; but it is obvious that this simple test was likely to prove insufficient, and it is not surprising that the next century reveals other solutions. The same problem, for instance, is faced in the Johannine Epistles. “Try the spirits,” says the writer, “because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1); and he gives a doctrinal test which goes a little further than St. Paul’s. “Every spirit,” he says, “which confesses Jesus as a Messiah come in flesh is of God.” Parallel with this doctrinal test is another, found in the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, which suggests that conduct is the test of inspiration; and Ignatius proposed to leave the decision of the question to the Bishop, and this method ultimately became general. The other question which the Corinthians propounded was concerned with the relative value of the gifts (χαρίσματα) by which the Spirit manifested itself. It is not necessary now—indeed, it is outside the scope of this book —to consider the details of St. Paul’s answer. The question is, What light can be thrown on the situation at Corinth? It is important to notice that practically all distinction in the community is regarded as a gift of the Spirit. To this are ascribed healings, miracles, prophecy, the power of distinguishing spirits, glossolalia, and the interpretation of glossolalia. The question which agitated the Corinthians was the relative value of these gifts, and St. Paul’s answer, though given at some length, and rising to the most eloquent heights, is comparatively simple,—he states that social not individual value is the standard by which the gifts must be measured, and that none of them are useful without sympathy (ἀγάπη). But it is also quite plain that this is not exactly the point which the Corinthians had proposed. Their question was inspired by a divergence of opinion as to the more ecstatic gifts, prophecy and glossolalia; some thought that they were of supreme importance; others regarded them as undesirable. The former type is more fully dealt with by St. Paul, but the existence of the latter is vouched for by the advice, “Forbid not to speak with tongues.” The importance of this will become plain in the next paragraph. The Regulation of Worship.—It is clear from St. Paul’s statement that the great respect claimed for the gifts of the Spirit was the main reason for difficulties connected with religious services. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:23-35 : “If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: and thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a revelation, hath a tongue hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that in turn; and let one be an interpreter. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge. If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted. And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets; for God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the Law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.” The picture drawn of the state of things in Corinth is plain enough: everything was being sacrificed to the “gifts” of prophesy and glossolalia. The prophets all spoke at once, and even women claimed to be heard. It is not unnatural that, under these circumstances, there was a party which was ready to “quench the Spirit,” and “forbid prophecies”; and that there was considerable friction between the ecstatic and the more sober members of the community. The question of the women is a little more complicated. It appears that there was a party, no doubt composed largely of women, who thought that women were in no respect inferior to men. It must be admitted that they could appeal with some force to St. Paul’s own teaching that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female. Therefore they insisted that women should be allowed the same freedom of prophecy in the community as men enjoyed. Against this party we can imagine that it was argued that, although it might be true that in Christ Jesus there is no difference between male and female, this does not apply in practice to life in this world, and a protest was raised against behaving as though the kingdom of God were already come. A further point was concerned with dress. From 1 Corinthians 11:3 ff., it appears that the general custom was then—as now—for women to have their heads covered in church, and for men to be bareheaded. It is the task of the interpreter of St. Paul to explain the justification which St. Paul gives of this custom: it is by no means plain, and 1 Corinthians 11:10 in particular, “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels,” provides a problem which is likely to remain insoluble. But it is quite simple to see the situation which called forth his remarks. The point which is remarkable is that the custom to which the Corinthian women objected, and St. Paul adhered, was the Greek, not the Jewish practice. The Eucharist.—The Eucharist is so closely connected with controversies of every kind that it is desirable to define somewhat closely precisely what points belong to the present discussion. Regarded as an historical problem, it may be said to confront the student of Christian origins with the following questions: (1) What is the value of the account in the Synoptic Gospels of the institution of the Eucharist, and what was (supposing the historical nature of the story to be accepted) the real meaning of Jesus? (2) What was the view held by the Corinthian Christian as to the meaning of the Eucharist, and in what form was it celebrated? (3) In what direction did St. Paul think it desirable to amend the Corinthian practice or doctrine? (4) How far did the Christian custom of the next generation agree with or differ from the lines laid down or sanctioned by St. Paul? Of these four problems the second is that which is necessary for the present purpose; the first and fourth are scarcely germane to it at all; and the third only quite partially.
We have, then, to ask what was the form in which the Corinthians celebrated the Eucharist, and what doctrine they attached to it. This can best be discussed under the two heads of form and doctrine. The form of celebration is indicated by St. Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 11:20-21, and his advice in 1 Corinthians 11:33. In the former passage he says, “Now when you assemble together it is not possible to eat a Lord’s supper, for each takes his own supper at the meal, and one is hungry and another is drunken.”In the latter he says, “therefore, when ye assemble, wait for each other at the meal.” From this material two points are clear. First, the “Lord’s supper” was a true meal, not merely a ceremonial or symbolical eating, that the custom was for individuals to bring food for this meal, and secondly, that owing to the bad habit, which St. Paul rebukes, of each eating what he brought himself, there was an undesirably unequal distribution of the provisions, and an unseemly tendency not to wait until the whole community was present. It also seems, from the way in which St. Paul introduces the whole question by a reference to the divisions in the Church, that the secret cause for this behaviour was the partizanship of the Corinthians: instead of there being one meal for the whole community, there was a tendency to divide into groups and cliques which did not share their food with each other.
It is sometimes thought that this meal ought to be separated from the Eucharist, and be identified with the Agape. This view is untenable for two reasons. In the first, it is clear that St. Paul is speaking of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23 ff., and there is no trace of any break in his argument between this passage and the preceding section, in which an actual meal is clearly being discussed. In the second place, it is extremely doubtful whether there was a distinction between Agape and Eucharist. In the letters of Ignatius the words are clearly synonyms, and Batiffol has gone far towards proving that the supposed difference between the two elsewhere is based on no solid foundation. The doctrine of the Eucharist, as it was held by the Corinthians, is primarily illustrated by 1 Corinthians 10:16-20. In this passage St. Paul says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a sharing of the body of Christ?…but what they (i.e. the heathen) sacrifice, they sacrifice not to God, but to daemons: I would not have you share in daemons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of daemons; you cannot share the table of the Lord and the table of daemons.” The importance of this passage is that St. Paul is here not discussing doubtful points in the Eucharist, or giving instruction concerning it, as he is in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, but is using the general and undisputed belief of Christians as to the Eucharist in order to establish his position with regard to things offered to idols. He clearly means that the Corinthians know quite well that the Eucharist is a rite which really conveys that which the heathen erroneously thought to obtain in their sacrificial meals—that is, the participation in the Divine nature. A further light on the doctrine of the Eucharist is thrown by 1 Corinthians 10:3 ff. Here St. Paul speaks of the manna which the Israelites ate in the wilderness as “spiritual food,” and the water from the rock as “spiritual drink.” His argument is, “the Israelites—like you—had spiritual food and drink, yet they fell.” He can scarcely be referring to anything except the Eucharist; and if so, he implies clearly that in the Eucharist Christians received the “Spirit” in the form of food and drink. When we remember that to St Paul “the Lord is the Spirit,” and that His body was “spiritual,” it is plain that the only conclusion we can draw is that the Corinthians regarded the Eucharist as food and drink, by eating which they enjoyed communion, or participation, in the life of Jesus, as a Spirit; or, to express it differently, by it they became ἔνθεοι—ἐν Χριστῳ—just as the participants in the Eleusinian Mysteries believed that they became ἴνθεοι, by means of a meal, in which they partook, in some mysterious manner, of the body of Dionysus.Whether there was any special service of consecration for the elements is not clear, but the expressions “the cup of blessing which we bless,” and “the bread which we break,”in 1 Corinthians 10:16, probably point to some liturgical formula, which was regarded as endowing the bread and wine with its miraculous properties. The question remains whether the Eucharist was generally regarded as a commemoration of the death of Jesus. That St. Paul so regarded it is, of course, proved by 1 Corinthians 11:26 : “For so often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye show forth the Lord’s death.” It is, however, just possible, though not, I think, probable, that this was not part of the general Corinthian faith, but that St. Paul was reminding them of a point which they had overlooked. It would, in any case, be an idea which would seem to Gentile minds quite natural, and precisely similar to one of the most frequent forms of sacrificial meal. This was the sacrificial meal instituted by the testament (διαθήκη; cf. Mark 14:24) of some rich and pious person who left instructions that a meal should be held in his memory in the temple of one of the gods. These meals were thus commemorative of a dead person; but they were also sacraments, by means of which a union with Divine life was accomplished.
(3) THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD
It is clear from 1 Corinthians 15:1-58 that there was a party at Corinth which denied that there would ever be a resurrection of the dead. It is also plain that there was nevertheless no dispute as to the resurrection of Christ, for the whole argument of St. Paul is based on the fact that there was a general consent on that subject. It has sometimes been thought that this implies that the Corinthians had no hope of any future life beyond death. But this view is an unjustifiable conclusion from 1 Corinthians 15:17-19. St. Paul is here arguing that there must be a resurrection, because a future life is impossible without one, and that the hope of the Christian to share in the life of Christ necessitates that he should rise from the dead just as Christ did. Moreover, the idea that there was no future life is as wholly foreign to the point of view of the “Mystery Religions” of the Corinthian world, as it was to that of Jewish theology. The question was not whether there would be a future life, but whether a future life must be attained by means of a resurrection, and St. Paul’s argument is that in the first place the past resurrection of Christ is positive evidence for the future resurrection of Christians, and in the second place that the conception of a resurrection is central and essential in Christianity, which offers no hope of a future life for the dead apart from a resurrection. As was said in connection with the similar question in Thessalonica, the situation is only intelligible if we take into consideration the general views associated with the Mystery Religions. These religions all made the same offer —life through death, given by mysteries which secured association with a divine saviour, who had himself also passed through death. But even though some of these mysteries—notably those connected with Attis and Osiris —spoke of an actual resurrection of the dead god, they rarely seem to have conceived the idea of a general resurrection of the dead on the lines of Jewish belief. The point of difference is this: the Greek expected that after death the spirit, which was divine, at all events after initiation into the mysteries, was set free from the trammels of the flesh, which it left behind. The flesh remained in the grave, and was gradually dissolved into the elements of which it had been composed: the spirit went through the heavens armed with the secret knowledge (γνῶσις) which enabled it to pass the various doors and their guardians, and as it went it left behind at each stage something more of the things which limit or defile. For it is not only the flesh which is bondage: the intellect, the emotions, the desires, all belong to the lower spheres of being, and each is cast aside as the realm to which it belongs is passed through. The Jewish doctrine, on the other hand, found its centre in the idea of a resurrection. It did not always postulate a permanent resurrection of the flesh as such, but a resurrection which was preliminary to a change from flesh into spirit. On the other hand, there were some Jewish schools which looked for a resurrection of the flesh, and its immortality as such in the kingdom of God. So, for instance, the writer of the fourth book of the Sibyllines says—
ἀλλʼ ὅταν ἤδη πάντα τέφρη σποδόεσσα γένηται
καὶ πῦρ κοιμήσῃ θεὸς ἄσπετον ὥσπερ ἀνῆψεν,
ὀστέα καὶ σποδιὴν αὐτὸς θεὸς ἔμπαλιν ἄνδρων
μορφώσει, στήσει δὲ βροτοὺς πάλιν, ὡς πάρος ἦσαν.
καὶ τότε δὴ κρίσις ἔσσετʼ, ἐφʼ ᾗ δικάσει θεὸς αὐτός
κρίνων ἔμπαλι κόσμον …
ὅσσοι δʼ εὐσεβέουσι, πάλιν ζήσονται ἐπὶ γαῖαν
πνεῦμα θεοῦ δόντος ζωήν θʼ ἅμα καὶ χάριν αὺτοῖς
εὺσεβέσιν, κ.τ.λ.
Thus it is natural that at Corinth there was a division of opinion among the Christians as to a resurrection of the dead. It was not that any one questioned the immortality of the soul, or doubted that Jesus had conquered death. But there were some who did not think that this implied a resurrection of the flesh, and did not believe that the flesh could become incorruptible or immortal; on the other hand, those who had been more closely in contact with Jewish Apocalyptic teaching regarded a resurrection as a necessary part of the coming of the Kingdom.
It is easy to see St. Paul thinking first of one party and then of the other as he writes 1 Corinthians 15:1-58. On the main issue he agrees with the Jewish point, insists on the parallelism between Christ and the Christian, and combats the objection as to a resurrection of the flesh by arguing that a “body” may be of “spirit.” Then he turns round and recognizes the element of truth in the Greek position. “I admit,” he says (φημί), “that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” and proceeds to adopt the doctrine of a change of substance at the moment of resurrection. If we may freely paraphrase his words, what he says is: “The Jewish party is right in thinking that those who die before the coming of the kingdom do not pass individually and separately into heaven. They will sleep until the resurrection, and then—this is the Christian mystery—they will be raised up as spiritual bodies. On the other hand, the Greek party is right in thinking that there is no resurrection of the body as flesh: flesh and blood have no part in the kingdom of God; it is right in thinking that our flesh belongs to the corruptible world, and cannot pass into the world of eternity and incorruptibility. Nevertheless, the Greeks do not understand the true nature of the Christian mystery; it is not, like the heathen mysteries, a promise of a passage into an eternal but incorporeal life; it is the promise of a change of substance which will affect both living and dead, when the Parousia comes, so that our bodies, instead of consisting of corruptible flesh and blood, will become spiritual, and consist of the same substance as do God and His attendants.” It will be noted that the question of the period after death and before resurrection does not seem to have been discussed. This was, no doubt, due to the immediate expectation of the Parousia.
(4) THE OPPOSITION TO ST. PAUL
Since the modern investigations of early Christian history were taken in hand, there have been two main lines of opinion as to the nature of the opposition to St. Paul in Corinth. According to one view it was a new manifestation of the Judaizing propaganda, which had its centre in Jerusalem and was controverted in the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Romans. According to the other it was inspired by a desire to go still further than St. Paul in the direction of freedom from the Law, and to lay even greater stress on the spiritual nature of Christianity. Each of these opinions rests on the prima facie obvious meaning of one or two passages, and the real difficulty is that, whichever view be taken, either an exegesis has to be adopted for some passages which is not the most natural, or a position of affairs has to be supposed to exist for which no direct evidence can otherwise be adduced. In favour of the view that St. Paul’s opponents were Judaizers, are, in the main, two references in 2 Corinthians, with each of which various less important references may be grouped.
(α) In 2 Corinthians 11:5, and again in 2 Corinthians 12:11, St. Paul refers to his opponents as the “ultra apostles” (οἱ ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι). The most natural interpretation is that this refers to the leaders of the Church at Jerusalem, to the “Twelve” in particular, and that it ought to be especially connected with the mention of a Cephas party in 1 Corinthians 1:12. With these may be grouped the reference in 1 Corinthians 9:4 ff. to Cephas and to the “brothers of the Lord.” “Have we not a right to eat and to drink? Have we not a right to take about a Christian wife, as do the other Apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” The exegesis of this passage is doubtful, but it is at least certain that the general meaning is that St. Paul did not do the same as the other Apostles, and that from this fact the conclusion had been drawn that he had not the same rights as they had. It cannot be denied that the mention of Cephas and still more of the brothers of the Lord is prima facie evidence for a Judaizing movement of the Jerusalem type.
(β) In 2 Corinthians 11:22, St. Paul says, “Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I.” This undoubtedly proves that at least some of his opponents were Jews, and there is a prima facie probability that Jews may have belonged to the Judaizing school of Jerusalem. With this passage may be grouped 2 Corinthians 11:14 ff., “Even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing, therefore, if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness.” It is considered that διάκονος δικαιοσύνης is the claim made by Judaizers, and is, as it were, the other side of the accusation which they brought against St. Paul, that he reduced Christ to the position of a διάκονος ἁμαρτίας (Galatians 2:17). But this is not really a very strong argument, for St. Paul would certainly have claimed that he was in actual fact a minister of righteousness. His point is that the appearance of being ministers of righteousness, which his opponents, in common with all other Christians, presented to their hearers, was delusive and due to the deceits of Satan, rather than to the grace of God. His statement is probably no guide as to the nature of the opposition to his teaching. Much the same can be said of 2 Corinthians 11:4, in which St. Paul refers to “another Jesus,” “another spirit,” and “another gospel” in connection with his opponents. It is of course natural to compare this with Galatians 1:6, in which he says, “I marvel that you are so quickly perverted … to another gospel”; but, entirely apart apart from the extreme difficulty of the exegesis of both passages, the most that really follows is that both in Corinth and in Galatia, St. Paul regarded the teaching of his opponents as different from his own; it is wholly uncertain whether the difference was in each case in the same direction.
Such is the main case for the view that St. Paul’s opponents were Judaizers: it may be—and often has been —expanded at great length, but it has not gained in strength in the process. Similarly, the great objection to it can be stated in one sentence,—there is from the beginning to the end of the Epistles to the Corinthians not the faintest trace of any controversy as to that insistence on circumcision and on the Law, which we recognize as cardinal in those to the Galatians and Romans. One asks whether, in face of this silence, there is no other preferable exegesis of the passages which seem to point to Judaizing, and there is every reason for giving consideration to the other view, which does not identify St. Paul’s opponents with Judaizers.
According to this view, the opponents of St. Paul were an antinomian and libertine type, who laid great emphasis on the “Spirit” which they had received, and regarded themselves as πνευματικοί, raised in consequence of their gift above the weakness of other men. The main evidence for this view is to be found in the references contained in 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-14. The most important of these is at the very beginning (2 Corinthians 10:2), where St. Paul speaks of those who “regard us as walking according to the flesh.” The implication is clear that his opponents regarded themselves as walking according to the Spirit, as πνενματικοί. In complete agreement with this are traces which we can recover of the reasons for which they impugned St. Paul’s apostolate and maintained their own superiority. These reasons seem to have been four. (α) He did not work sufficient miracles: this is implied in 2 Corinthians 12:11 ff., “For in nothing was I inferior to the ultra-apostles, even if I am of no importance. The signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs, and marvels, and miracles.” (β) He did not enjoy the same visions and revelations: this is implied by the whole section on visions (2 Corinthians 12:1-10). It is here not plain whether St. Paul means himself or some one else, by the man who was “taken up into the third heaven,” but it is certain that he is defending himself against those who lay great stress on visions, and claim a superiority to him on this point. (γ) He did not take the proper position of an Apostle, and live at the expense of the community: this accusation is clearly the background of the section 2 Corinthians 11:7-11, in which St. Paul defends his practice of taking nothing from the Corinthians. (δ) From 2 Corinthians 10:3-18 we have to conclude that contempt was cast on St. Paul’s personal appearance. It must not be thought that this was merely vulgar abuse: the point was that it was argued that St. Paul had not got the impressive powers which resulted from the gift of the Spirit. The view that St. Paul’s opponents were πνευματικοί, who regarded him as walking according to the flesh, may probably be supported by the difficult passage 2 Corinthians 5:16. St. Paul says, “Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now know we Him so no more.” In this part of 2 Corinthians he is, it is true, not attacking his opponents, but rather acknowledging the correctness of the action of the community, and urging his own friends not to ask for more; but the influence of the controversy can still be traced, and the most natural exegesis is that St. Paul is referring to some accusation of having only a knowledge of Christ according the flesh. He admits that there was a time when this was true, but says that that time is now past: he is, in the best and truest sense of the word, a πνευματικός quite as much as his late opponents. If this exegesis be right, it supports the view that St. Paul’s opponents were πνιυματικοί, and it certainly seems to be the most simple and natural interpretation. The general result of a consideration of these passages, if they stood alone, would be sufficient to show that St. Paul’s opponents were πνευματικοὶ rather than Judaizers. But unfortunately they do not stand alone, and they have to be considered in connection with the passages previously discussed, which seem to point to Judaizers.
Certainty is probably not to be reached, but various lines which the discussion must always follow can be indicated. It is quite clear, for instance, that the passages pointing to Judaizing derive their force not from direct statements, but from the conclusions drawn (1) from the fact that St. Paul’s opponents were Jews, (2) from the fact that they claimed a superior apostolate. Neither of these facts is the equivalent of a statements that they were Judaizers, and on the other hand have to be set what amount to direct statements that they were πνευματικοί. The problem is, Can there have been Jews who claimed to be πνευματικοί, and to be, as apostles, superior to St. Paul, who were nevertheless not Judaizers? or, in the alternative, Can there have been Judaizers who were πνευματικοί, but did not preach either the circumcision or the Law? To some extent the matter depends on the definition of terms. What, in the first place, do we mean by a Judaizer? The classical definition is given us by St. Luke in Acts 15:1 : “And some who came down from Judaea began to teach the brethren ‘that unless you are circumcized according to the custom of Moses you cannot be saved.’ ”Galatians and Romans are clearly an answer to such a propaganda. But do we find that type of Judaizing elsewhere? I see no evidence for it. If therefore we use “Judaizing” to mean the same tendency as that combated in Galatians and Romans, we have to admit that it is not an appropriate name for the opponents of St. Paul in Corinth, and are driven to seek some other explanation for the facts that these opponents were Jews, and that they claimed a superior apostolate. With regard to the fact that they were Jews, it is necessary to disabuse ourselves of the idea that all Jews in the time of St. Paul—quite apart from Christianity—were in agreement with the strictly legalistic point of view of Jerusalem. There is a far too general tendency to forget that the Talmudic literature is in some respects not only no help, but positively a hindrance to the correct understanding of Judaism in the first century, because it represents the one-sided survival of a single element in that Judaism to the exclusion of others. In this respect the New Testament is a superior authority to the Talmud, though its evidence is no doubt often warped by partizan feelings. Philo is in some ways the best source which we possess, and is certainly so for the Diaspora with which we are at present concerned. Now, as was said on pp. 24 f., the evidence of Philo is explicit that there were Jews who had entirely abandoned the practical observance of the Law, and gave it a wholly symbolical meaning. They were to an even greater extent than Philo himself imbued with a Greek spirit, and consciously or unconsciously they were syncretistic. We have, so far as I am aware, no evidence that there were Jews of this type in Corinth; but since they existed in Alexandria, it is more probable than not that they were also found in Greece. If so, we have an easy solution to the problem afforded by the existence of opponents of St. Paul, who were Jews, but πνευματικοί, not Judaizers. We have to deal, in fact, in Corinthians and Galatians, with two streams of development in Judaism, both of which were attracted by Christianity, but both preserved after their conversion their own peculiarities. In Galatians we have the stream of strict legalism, which had its centre in Jerusalem: it regarded St. Paul as a dangerous innovator, who was introducing into Christianity one of the unhappy heresies from which the Diaspora suffered. In Corinthians we have the stream of antinomism, which possibly had its centre in Alexandria, and certainly was a peculiarity of the Diaspora; it regarded St. Paul as an inconsistent weakling, imperfectly influenced by the Spirit, and not yet completely loose from the legal bondage of Jerusalem. That this hypothesis is probable can be seen most clearly if we compare Corinthians and Galatians with regard to the mutual attitude of St. Paul and his opponents. In Galatians he appeals to his converts “after beginning in the Spirit not to end in the flesh.” Thus he makes by implication the accusation that his Judaizing opponents were “walking according to the flesh”; but in 2 Corinthians it is his opponents who make this accusation against him—the situation is reversed. In Galatians he defends the right of teachers to be supported by the community; but in Corinthians he was apparently himself attacked for not exercising this right. In Galatians the contrasts are the Law and Christ, Works and Faith, Merit and Grace; in Corinthians they are Power and Weakness, Self-confidence and Modesty, Pride and Humility, Wisdom and Ignorance, Spirit and Flesh. Nothing could be plainer than that the situations in the two Epistles are quite different. So far, however, nothing has been said of the question of the apostolate. If the “ultra-apostles” were not the leaders of the Jerusalem Churches, who were they? At first sight this seems an insurmountable difficulty, but I believe that it is largely unreal, and due partly to the influence of comparatively early changes in the meaning of the word “apostle,” such as only recent discoveries enable us to appreciate, partly to the influence of the incorrect views of early history, which were brought into currency in the nineteenth century.
What was an “apostle” in the early Church? He was a missionary. The Twelve were Apostles because they had been given a mission among the villages of Galilee by Jesus; they were the Apostles par excellence. But they were not the only Apostles: St. Paul was an Apostle, St. Barnabas was an Apostle, and the evidence of the Didache is conclusive that at the beginning of the second century “apostle” was not the name of a small and select body of men, but of all those who were fulfilling certain definite functions. A probably mistaken exegesis of 1 Corinthians 9:1 has done something to obscure this question. In the context of this passage St. Paul has been discussing the question of things offered to idols, and has said that he would rather never eat meat again than give offence to weaker brethren; he then goes on, “Am I not free? am I not an Apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I am no Apostle for others, at least I am to you, for ye are in the Lord my seal of fellowship.” It is customary to regard this passage as the answer to an attack on St. Paul’s apostolate: indirectly it may be so, for the troubles in Corinth broke out soon afterwards; but directly and principally it has to do with the question of things offered to idols. It is a mistake to think that all the qualifications mentioned in 1 Corinthians 9:1 ff. are intended to prove that he was an Apostle. The main point is the argument that he, in spite of his privileges, prefers not to use them lest he should give offence, and that the Corinthians ought in the same way to consider the feelings of others in relation to things offered to idols. It is only incidentally that he puts in a parenthesis defending his apostolate. If this be so, the three clauses, “Am I not free? am I not an Apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” are three separate claims to distinction, and it is an exaggeration to say that St. Paul only regarded as “apostles” those who had seen Jesus. If this had been the meaning of “apostle,” there could have been no apostles in the second century, and very few at the end of the first. Yet, as a matter of fact, apostles were sufficiently numerous for it to be necessary for the Didache to make rules for their reception, and for distinguishing between true and false. A consideration of this fact shows that the existence of “apostles” among St. Paul’s opponents, is not the proof that they were Judaizers. Of course the expression, “ultra-apostles” (οἱ ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι), undoubtedly suggests to our minds the original Apostles, whose followers might have been supposed to emphasize their superior claims. Yet it need not be so; there is nothing in the Epistles to the Corinthians to show that the question of “originality” was discussed, and therefore I do not believe that, in the face of the other facts, we have any right to assume that the “ultra-apostles” were the Jerusalem Apostles, or that the party which appealed to them was that of Cephas. They were probably merely those who advanced arrogant claims on the ground of their apostleship. A final and decisively certain result is probably unattainable. I have tried to show why it seems to me probable that St. Paul’s opponents were πνευματικοί, and not Judaizers. I hope I have also adequately drawn attention to the points in favour of the view which I reject, though it is notoriously impossible to be really quite sympathetically fair to opinions which one does not hold. So far, however, I have chiefly discussed the evidence of 2 Corinthians, which in any case belongs to the time when the differences between St. Paul and his opponents had developed and been made plain, and is therefore the proper basis of any investigation. It now remains to ask how far the undeveloped form of this opposition can be traced in 1 Corinthians. The main point is the relation of the opponents of St. Paul to the persons aimed at in 1 Corinthians 1:1-31, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, 1 Corinthians 3:1-23, 1 Corinthians 4:1-21. It would be outside the present purpose to discuss the light which these extraordinarily important chapters throw on St. Paul’s own; but it is clear that he is protesting against an undue desire for “wisdom,” that he maintains that his converts are showing by their quarrels that they are not truly spiritual (πνευματικοἰ), and that it is for this reason that he has been unable to give them the “wisdom” which they desire, or to regard them—as they do themselves—as “spiritual.” If it be conceded that the opponents of St. Paul were πνευματικοί, it is impossible not to think that they were identical with the persons to whom he refers in the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians. But, if one goes further, and asks if this enables us to identify these persons with the parties of Apollos, or Cephas, or Christ (if there was such a party), the answer must be indeterminate. Everything is possible. Apollos may have been incautiously inclined to philosophize, or he may have belonged to the extreme allegorizing sect of Alexandrian Jews, or the Christ party may have consisted of those who claimed that they were inspired by the Spirit of Christ, and that nothing else mattered. But there is no proof, and there can never be anything, because there is no evidence. More or less imaginative sketches can be found in almost all the books cited on pp. 222 and 225. Personally, I do not see how it can ever be possible to say more than that the general tone of 1 Corinthians 1:1-31, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, 1 Corinthians 3:1-23, 1 Corinthians 4:1-21, coupled with the Alexandrian history of Apollos, makes the party of Apollos not improbable as a “spiritual” party, but that, if 2 Corinthians 10:7 be regarded as a reference to a “Christ party,” then it is more probable that it was this party which was dealt with in 1 Corinthians 1:1-31, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16, 1 Corinthians 3:1-23, 1 Corinthians 4:1-21 and that from it the hostility to St. Paul was chiefly developed.
Much the same can be said of the parties revealed by the considerations of the questions discussed in the later chapters of 1 Corinthians, and especially by the points dealt with on pp. 175 ff. Clearly there was a party in Corinth which pressed the importance of the Spirit in connection with sacrificial meals, the Eucharist, and the regulation of worship; and St. Paul, in dealing with these questions, had leaned decidedly more to the side of their opponents. This would be an adequate explanation of the rise of really serious opposition to his authority, such as is indicated in 2 Corinthians. On the whole, therefore, 1 Corinthians not only does nothing to impugn the conclusion reached from 2 Corinthians, that St. Paul’s opponents were πνευματικοί, but it definitely supports it, by the proof which it gives that there were πνευματικοὶ in Corinth, and that St. Paul had treated the differences of opinion between them and the rest of the community in a manner which was extremely likely to rouse opposition.
******* The consideration of the Epistles to the Corinthians has led us to a mass of small but mutually related problems, many of them excessively dull to all except those who find that literary criticism offers the same kind of interest as a game of chess. But, if we view the mass of details from a little distance, we can trace the general appearance of the Christian community at Corinth, and the picture thus presented is of the greatest importance, for there is in the first century no presentment of any other Church on the same scale. The majority of the Church was no doubt drawn from the God-fearers, though there were some Jews, probably belonging to the “liberal” type, which then existed in the Diaspora. But the main feature was that they all accepted Christianity as a Mystery Religion, which really could do what the other Mystery Religions pretended to do. Jesus was to the Corinthians the Redeemer-God, who had passed through death to life, and offered participation in this new life to those who shared in the mysteries which He offered. These mysteries were Baptism and the Eucharist, and there was unanimity in Corinth as to their central importance. But differences began to be manifested so soon as practical conclusions were drawn from this belief. The mysteries gave eternal life because in them the Spirit was received: but were those who manifested the more striking gifts of the Spirit necessarily better than other Christians? Here there was a difference of opinion. Or again, did this inspiration abolish the distinction, and put women on an equality with men in the Church? Here, again, was difference. Or once more, was the Christian bound to a strict abstinence from all that is carnal, because he had become spiritual? or was he set free to do as he liked with his body? Asceticism or Libertinism: which was it to be? And from this Maëlstrom of cross-currents of opinion arose the quarrel between St. Paul and those πνευματικοί who pushed their arguments to an extreme, and drew wrong conclusions from the gift of the Spirit. So much we can see: those are the main features of the picture. If we look again we can note the absence of other things which we should have expected. There is no trace of any Judiastic controversy as to Circumcision or the Law, no trace of any question as to “Israel after the flesh,” and no trace of any controversy as to the meaning of the death of the Messiah. The last point seems the strangest; but it is really natural enough. The death of the Redeemer was as common an idea among the Greeks as the death of the Messiah was strange among the Jews. That St. Paul preached “Christ crucified” is certain. No doubt many Greeks regarded it as foolishness, because they did not believe that Jesus was a Redeemer-God, or because they allegorized all similar stories, and found no reason to believe in an historical Redeemer. But for those Greeks who did accept Christianity the redeeming death of the Divine Being seemed natural, and, so far as these Epistles show, there was as yet no discussion in Corinth as to the reason why this death had been necessary, or how it came to be efficient.
Literature.—Much information will be found in commentaries on the Epistles to the Corinthians. Of these there is nothing in English to be compared with the commentaries of Lietzmann in the third volume of Lietzmann’s Handbuch zum neuen Testament; J. Weiss’s Der erste Korintherbrief in Meyer’s Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament, 9th edition; P. W. Schmiedel in Holtzmann’s Hand-commentar zum neuen Testament; G. Heinrici (on the Second Epistle) in Meyer’s 8th edition; and W. Bousset in J. Weiss’s Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Besides these there are important articles in the Encyclopœdia Biblica by W. Sanday, and in Hastings’Dictionary of the Bible by A. Robertson. Both these articles ought to be studied as representing the strongest presentment of the case against the division of 2 Corinthians into two letters. But on this question the most thorough book in any language is J. H. Kennedy’s The Second and Third Epistles to the Corinthians. On special points the following books are important: —H. Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes nach der populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit, und der Lehre des Apostels Paulus; W. Heitmuller, Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus; M. Goguel, L’Eucharistie (gives a valuable account of recent work, as well as new suggestions); R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen; W. Lutgert, Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth.
1 See
1 Ἀρχισυνάγωγος is found in Mark 5:22, Mark 5:35-36, Mark 5:38; Luke 8:49; Luke 13:14; Acts 13:15; Acts 18:17. In Mark v. (and the parallel Luke 8:1-56) and Acts 13:15, it is clear that there was more than one ἀρχισυνάγωγος. Luke 13:14 seems to point only to one, but it may quite well mean “the ἀρχις. who was presiding.” The position of the ἀρχισυνάγωγος is discussed by Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, ed. 3, II. 436 ff. and III. 49 ff. A distinction must be made between the ἄρχοντες, who were the chief members of the synagogue, roughly corresponding to what we should call the “governing body,” and the ἀρχισυνάγωγος or ἀρχισυνάγωγοι, who were responsible for the arrangements for the services of worship. Probably in small communities there was one, in larger communities several. The parallel drawn above between the “elders” of a Protestant church and the ἀρχισυνάγωγοι is quite rough, for the functions of the two classes are not precisely the same, and in the Jewish synagogue there was no “minister.” The title of ἀρχισυνάγωγος was also used, at all events later, as a purely honorary title, and even given to women and children. Schürer also gives copious references to inscriptions and articles in technical periodicals. Cf. also his Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden im Rom in der Kaiserszeit.
1 See Blass’s Commentary, ad loc.
2 Josephus, Antiquit., 14.10.2.
3 [α]πολαβομενοι δε παντες οι ελληνες μετα (sic) σωσθενην τον ἀρχεισυναγωγον. The Latin of Codex Bezae (the Greek is illegible) has an interesting paraphrase of οὐδὲν τούτων τῷ γαλλίωνι ἔμελεν—“tum gallio fingebat eum non uidere.”
1 So also thought Ammonius: Ἤ διὰ τοῦτο ἔτυπτον τὸν Σωσθένην, ἐπειδὴ καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν μᾶλλον προστιθέμενος τῷ Παύλῳ, ὡς καὶ Κρίσπος ὁ ἀρχισυνάγωγος, ἢ εἰς τοσοῦτον ἐληλακότες μανίας ὅτι ἀποτυχόντες τοῦ σκοποῦ ἑαυτῶν, κ.τ.λ.—exhausting all possibilities without choosing between them (see J. A. Cramer, Catena Graecorum Patrum, 3. p. 306).
1 Expounded at length by J. H. Hart, in the Journal of Theological Studies for October, 1905, in his article on “Apollos.”
1 The exception to this is probably the Christian teaching in a crucified, suffering, and dead Messiah. There is little or no proof that this was ever a Jewish doctrine, and that is why the Christian exegetes soon made a new set of “Testimonies” to cover this point, introducing a Messianic interpretation of the passages referring to the suffering servant. The Jews have never accepted this exegesis, which indeed can scarcely claim to be e mente auctoris (see further, Chap. 6).
1 The most extreme statement of this possibility will be found in the article quoted above on “Apollos” by J. H. Hart in the Journal of Theological Studies for October, 1905; see further on, p.
1 Ταῦτα καὶ ὑμεῖς διὰ τῆς τοσαύτης νουθεσίας τὴν ἀπὸ Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου φυτείαν γενηθεῖσαν Ῥωμαίων τε καὶ Κορινθίων συνεκεράσατε. Καὶ γὰρ ἄμφω καὶ εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν Κόρινθον φυτεύσαντες ἡμᾶς ὁμοίως ἐδίδαξαν, κ.τ.λ., quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2. 25, 8.
1 Whether the scene at Antioch was before or after the Council, and whether the agreement at Jerusalem was at the Council, or earlier, are points which are here unimportant (see
1 It is true that St. Paul says, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase,” and does not mention Cephas. Still this can scarcely be regarded as a very serious point.
2 It is curious that Silvanus, according to 1 and 2 Thessalonians, was in Corinth with St. Paul; that he then disappears from the Pauline circle; and that he reappears later (if it be the same Silvanus) in the company of St. Peter (1 Peter 5:12). Is this because the three Apostles, St. Paul, St. Peter, and Silvanus, met in Corinth?
3I should be sorry if these remarks seemed to imply disrespect of the Tübingen critics. There is no school to whom we are so much indebted; and Baur’s Paulus is a work of genius. But they were not infallible, and in some respects their methods had the roughness of pioneers. Largely owing to their efforts we are able in many respects to improve on their results; but those who speak most evil of the Tübingen school have usually never read their books.
1 There is a curious reference to St. Barnabas in 1 Corinthians 9:6. It is difficult to think that it hints that St. Barnabas had been in Corinth, though there is no reason why he should not have been; perhaps the best suggestion is that it is a reference to the first missionary journey (see J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, p. 235).
1 This is at least a possible interpretation of Acts 18:22, καὶ κατελθὼν εἰς καισαρίαν, ἀναβὰς καὶ ἀσπασάμενος τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, κατέβη εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, in which Ramsay thinks that “going up” means going up to Jerusalem. This seems at first sight far-fetched: the natural meaning is that he went up from the harbour to the town; but the same view seems to have been held by the Bezan scribe, who makes St. Paul gives as his excuse for not staying in Ephesus, “I must at any rate keep the coming feast at Jerusalem.” Perhaps it is right.
1 Possibly “in Ephesus” ought not to be taken too strictly. It may include the district of which Ephesus was the centre (see p.
1 This was seen by the writer of the Acta Pauli, who invented an apocryphal correspondence between St. Paul and the Corinthians; see
1Made popular by Chrysostom and dominant until the time of Beza, who rejected it.
1“For all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”
2 Kritische Untersuchungen über den Inhalt der beiden Briefen an die korinthische Gemeinde. Second edition, 1886.
1As will be seen (pp.
1See Josephus, Antiquit., xiv.10. 2; cf. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, ed. 4, III. 113 ff., and Mommsen in the Zeitschrift f. d. N. Tliche Wiss., 1901, p. 88 ff.
2 The whole question of the growth of organization belongs rather to the investigation of the background of the later Epistles; but an admirable résumé, with references to other literature, will be found in J. Weiss’ Der erste Korintherbrief, pp. xvi. ff.
1 Surely the aorist must be so translated.
1 J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, pp. xl. ff. and 366.
1 According to DEFG al pauc., St. Paul stayed at Ephesus with Aquila and Priscilla, for they add to 1 Corinthians 16:19, after the mention of the Church in their house, παρʼ οἷς καὶ ξενίζομαι.
2A further problem, which it is not necessary to discuss at length, is quite definitely raised by this verse. When was St. Paul ever in danger of this kind at Ephesus? Either he is alluding to some incident at Ephesus, which can scarcely be that connected with Demetrius the silversmith (Acts 19:23 ff.), unless St. Luke has greatly understated the situation, or he is stating a wholly imaginary possibility. I think the former is somewhat the more probable, and that St. Paul must have passed through some form of persecution, and presumably imprisonment, of which Acts says nothing. The importance of this is twofold: (1) It corroborates (or is corroborated by) 2 Corinthians 11:23, which, among other trials, wholly unmentioned in Acts, mentions imprisonment. (2) It suggests that critics are perhaps a little rash in thinking that the “Epistles of the captivity,” which certainly were written from prison, must necessarily have been written either from Rome or Caesarea. If there be any truth in this view, the θλίψις ἡ γενομένη ἐν Ἀσίᾳ (2 Corinthians 1:8) is probably a reference to this, not to the incident of Demetrius; but the further discussion of the point belongs to the history of Ephesus rather than Corinth.
1 “Sufficient to such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority, so that contrariwise ye should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sorrow” (2 Cor. 2.6 ff.).
1 As a matter of method it should be noted that complicated questions of this kind can only be satisfactorily handled by reducing them to a number of subordinate problems. Each of these problems is capable of alternative solutions, and in choosing between these the critic has to be guided by considering which is consistent with the solutions of other co-ordinate problems. The solutions not consistent with any of the alternatives must be struck out.
2 Ἔκρινα δὲ ἐμαυτῷ τοῦτο, τὸ μὴ πάλιν ἐν λύπῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐλθεῖν, אΑΒCDΕϜΓΚLΟΡ al plu., latt.,, syrr.… ἐν λύπῃ, post ἐλθεῖν min. pauc. … om πάλιν boh. aeth.
1 This section is almost entirely based on the masterly statement of Dr. J. H. Kennedy in his The Second and Third Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, pp. 79–94.
1 The Greek is οὐκέτι ἦλθον εἰς Κόρινθον. This can only mean, “I came not again” (or “not any more”) to Corinth: though the A.V. and the R.V., apparently under the influence of the exegesis which refused to recognize a “second visit,” translate it, “I came not as yet” (A.V.), which is an impossible meaning to get out of οὐκέτι, or “I forebare to come” (R.V.), which is scarcely better.
1 Exegetically the reading ὑμῶν is surely preferable, and it seems to have been the reading of א*B*, though it has been corrected in both MSS. by very early hands. The value of MSS. evidence is at its lowest in distinguishing between ὑμῶν and ἡμῶν. The pronunciation is, and probably was, quite identical.
2 This is the natural meaning of the words, though they are weakened in the R.V. into “I am of good courage toward you.”
1 Best known through Hausrath’s Der Viercapitelbrief des Paulus an die Korinther, 1870.
1 Dr. A. C. Clark has pointed out to me that there is a somewhat similar instance of combination in Cicero’s letters. It appears that there were two drafts of Ad Fam. x.8, and that these have been joined together as a single letter, perhaps by Tiro (see Bardt, in Hermes, xxxii. (1897), pp. 267–70).
2 J. Weiss (see p. 123) goes further, and argues that if we admit the probability that 2 Corinthians is composite, we ought also to recognize the same fact as valid for 1 Corinthians. He would argue that 1 and 2 Corinthians represent the Corinthian edition of St. Paul’s correspondence, put together from more or less dilapidated papyri many years after they had been received. There is nothing intrinsically impossible or improbable in this theory; but to my mind Dr. Kennedy’s view is preferable. I can see clear evidence for a partition theory in 2 Corinthians, but I am not convinced of the necessity of such a view for 1 Corinthians.
1 This is surely all that the Greek means. “I exhorted Titus” (R.V.) gives a wholly artificial sound to a simple phrase.
1 Dr. Kennedy is surely right in his contention that the construction of the Greek in 8. 6ff. is continuous: εἰς τὸ παρακαλέσαι ἡμᾶς Τίτον, ἵνα καθὼς προενήρξατο οὕτως καὶ ἐπιτελέσῃ εἰς ὑμᾶς καὶ τὴν χάριν ταύτην, ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ ἐν παντὶ περισσεύετε, πίστει καὶ λόγῳ καὶ γνώσει καὶ πάσῃ σπουδῇ καὶ τῇ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀγάπῃ, ἵνα καὶ ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ χάριτι περισσεύητε. The rendering of the R.V., which puts a stop after χάριν ταύτην, and treats ἵνα περισσεύητε as the equivalent of an imperative, though it may be paralleled in later Greek, is harsh and quite unnecessary.
1 It is perhaps scarcely necessary to point out that the Corinth of the first century is not the original Greek city. This was destroyed by Mummius in 146 b.c., and it remained for a long time in ruins and deserted. It was rebuilt about a century later by Julius Caesar, under the name of Laus Julia Corinthus, as a Roman colony, and in 27 b.c. became the capital of the province of Achaia under a Proconsul. See further, W. M. Ramsay on “Corinth” in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, and J. Weiss on Griechenland in des Apostolische Zeit in Herzog’s Realencyclopœdie, ed. 3, vol. vii., pp. 160–168. The latter gives a valuable series of references to other books and authorities.
1 It is worth noting in this connection that this sort of argument, or rather the necessity for meeting it, was one of the reasons why early Christianity was so anxious to hold the doctrine of a resurrection of the flesh. The opposite view was frequently connected with a low standard of morality. A study of Athenagoras is instructive on this subject.
1 The two things always go together: cultus was defined above as “the ritual expression of religious impulse.” It might equally well be called the “ritual stimulation of the religious impulse.”
1 Few people are aware of the horrible nature of the ritual practices of some of the Gnostics. The description, for instance, of the Carpocratians in Clement of Alexandria, or some of the allusions in the Pistis Sophia, would be wholly untranslatable.
3 It would of course be unfair to say that it was only the Church which made the attempt. Many of the Cynic-Stoic philosophers preached an ethical gospel of the highest kind, and no doubt their efforts did much good. Still, in the end, they ceased to exist, and the Church survived. In this sense the triumph of higher morality was the triumph of Christianity.
1 Matthew 22:30 = Mark 12:25 = Luke 20:34 ff. It is true that this phrase is actually connected in St. Mark with the resurrection, not with the Kingdom, but only because the resurrection is, for the dead, the means of entry into the Kingdom. It is instructive to note how St. Luke’s version of the section is really intended to bring out this fact: “The sons of this world (αἰῶνος) marry and are given in marriage, but they who are permitted to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage, for neither can they die any more, for they are as if angels (ἰσάγγελοι), and are ‘sons of God,’ because they are sons of the resurrection.” The words in italics are St. Luke’s additions. It is unimportant for the present purpose, but it is noteworthy that this passage in Luke is singularly full of interesting and very early variants.
2 Galatians 3:28; cf. also p. 209 for another use to which a strained exegesis of this view may possibly have been put.
3 Cf. Clem. Alex., Paed., 1 4, “ἐν γὰρ τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ,” φησίν, “γαμοῦσι καὶ γαμίσκονται,” ἐν ᾧ δὴ μόνῳ τὸ θῆλυ τοῦ ἄρρενος διακρίνεται, “ἐν ἐκείνῳ δὲ οὐκέτι,” and according to Hippolytus the Naassenes regarded Adamas, the “ἄνθρωπος, ” as a sexless person, or rather as ἀρσενόθηλυς, cf. Refut., v. 7.
1 He says that it means ἵνα ἀδελφὸς ἰδὼν ἀδελφὴν οὐδὲν φρονῇ περὶ αὐτῆς θηλυκόν, μηδὲ φρονῇ τι περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀρσενικόν, —a fine example, it seems to me, of the way in which eschatological expectation was transformed into ethical precepts. It does not seem necessary here to discuss the relation of this “saying” to the Gospel of the Egyptians. See Preuschen, Antilegomena, p. 2, for the text of the latter.
2 See especially Musonius ἐκ τοῦ τί κεφάλαιον γάμου, ed. Hense, p. 67, quoted in Lietzmann’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p. 160. Cf. Wendland, Die Hellenistische-Romische Kultus, pp. 18 and 39–53.
3 There is a large literature on this subject in early Christian and Jewish writings. Cf. the note in J. Weiss’ Commentary, p. 174, and there is much more in the later documents of the Byzantine Church.
1 Cf. Exodus 19:15; Leviticus 15:18; 1 Samuel 21:5, etc. Further references are given by Wetstein. Also cf. Dittenberger, Syll., 2 566 (p. 264 ff.) and 567 (p. 267), and Leitzmann’s Commentary, p. 105.
2 It is interesting to notice that he shows no trace of any knowledge of an exception to this prohibition. See further Expositor, November, 1910, on “Early Christian Teaching as to Divorce,” in which I have explained my reasons for thinking that primitive Christianity only recognized divorce in the sense of a separation, and did not regard the “exception” in Matthew 5:32 as giving any sanction to re-marriage.
1 Or, “so that both he that marrieth his virgin doeth well, and he that marrieth her not, shall do better.”
1 ἀσχημονεῖν is frequently used with a sexual reference. Cf. Romans 1:27.
2 προφάσει τοῦ μὴ δύνασθαι κρατεῖν τῆς ἀκμῆς ἐπὶ δευτερογαμίαν ἐλθεῖν. It is remarkable that ὑπέρακμος is apparently an absolute unique word.
1 Apollonius, De Syntaxi, 3 31, quoted by Lietzmann, p. 111, says, τὸ δὲ “γαμίζω” “γάμου τινὶ μεταδίδωμι.”
2 Modern Greek seems here to be no help, except in so far as it is perhaps noteworthy that γαμεῖν has lost its meaning, and is now an almost or quite disreputable word. Lietzmann (p. 111) also suggests that γαμίζω may mean to “celebrate a marriage.” Many verbs meaning “to celebrate” end in -ίζω. It is of course plain that Mark 12:25 and Luke 17:27 throw no light on the difficulty. The verb can there be equally well translated in either way.
1 Described in Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa. Doubts have been thrown on the genuineness of this by Lucius, Die Therapeuten und ihre Stellung in der Geschichte der Askese; his view is also supported by Schürer, Geschichte d. Jud. Volkes, ed. 4, 3 p. 687 ff.), where a full bibliography is given. But Bousset, Cohn, Drummond, Friedländer, Dieterich, and Conybeare regard the book as genuine. The best statement of the case for the genuineness is F. C. Conybeare’s Philo about the Contemplative Life, 1895.
1 Hermas is always quoted; I do not feel personally quite so certain that the famous passage in Sim. 9 11, is really a direct reference to virgines subintroductae—to use the later name for them—but it is at least an indirect reference.
2 See especially the Councils of Elvira, Ancyra, and Carthage, and, in addition to the work of Achelis, H. Koch’s Virgines Christi, in Texte und Untersuchungen, 31 2, pp. 59–112. It is also interesting to note the foreshadowing of modern results in a forgotten treatise of Muratori De Synisactis et Agapetis (written about 1709), recently pointed out by F. C. Conybeare, in Myth, Magic, and Morality, where the whole question is discussed (pp. 210 ff.).
1 The best statements as to the daemons may be found in Plutarch in many passages; an excellent résumé of them is given in Glover’s The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire, p. 94 ff. It must, however, be remembered that Plutarch represents the opinion of an educated theologian; the importance of the daemons for the general mass of people is indicated by the magical papyri.
1 Ultimately, of course, the Roman empire settled down to a belief in the actual divinity of the reigning emperor, as such. But this was the end of a development of thought which deserves more detailed treatment than it has at present received.
1 Full descriptions of their misdeeds and fate are given in Enoch vi.–xix., and in Jubilees iv.–v. References to the in Devils belief are found in Matthew 8:29; Matthew 12:24-28; Luke 11:24-26; Jude 1:6; 2 Peter 2:4.
2 Hence the point in Matthew 8:2 the devils ask, “Art Thou come to torture us before the time?” They do not question the Messianic personality of Jesus, but only protest that He has not yet received the active functions of the Messiah.
3 Cf. Reitzenstein, Hellenistiche Mysterien Religionen, p. 137. It is very important to notice how complete Reitzenstein succeeds in showing the error of the view formerly adopted by some theologians, that the concepts πνεῦμα, πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, are exclusively Biblical.
1 Porphyry, quoted by Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 4. 23. It is noteworthy how very nearly daemonic possession played the same part in ancient pathology as bacterial infection does in modern; disease was regarded as due to a daemon; if you could drive him out you could cure the disease. The same sort of thing is now said of bacilli, which, however, have the advantage that they can be seen under the microscope.
1 Josephus, Antiquit., 18. 3, 4. Paulina was, under these circumstances, seduced by her lover, who had bribed the priests to allow him to appear as the God Anubis. There appears to be no reason to doubt Paulina’s bona fides.
2 The subject may be studied in Frazer, Golden Bough, 2nd edition, vol. ii. pp. 318–366. Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, vol. v. cap. v., on Dionysiac ritual, especially pp. 164 ff.; and Harrison, Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion, cap. x., on the Orphic Mysteries, especially the section on the Omophagia, pp. 478-500. In all these a long series of references will be found to passages in original documents and to modern treatises on special points. Other references to German books will be found in Lietzmann’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians, pp. 124 ff.
1 This is apparently the Christian and possibly Jewish term. The usual expression was ιερόθυτον or θεόθυτν. See J. Weiss on 1 Cor. viii. I (p. 214). He gives references, among others, to Plutarch, Moralia, p. 729 C. ; Pollux, Onomast., i. 29. According to Phrynichus, Ecloga, p. 159 (Lobeck’s edition), θεόθυτον is the older term, which he recommends to the exclusion of ίερίθυτον.
1 Cf. Pap. Oxy., i. 110: ἐρωτᾷ σε Χαιρήμων δειπνῆσαι εἰς κλείνην (κλίνην) τοῦ κυρίου Σαράπιδος ἐν τῷ Σαραπείῳ αὔριον ἥτις ἐστὶν ιε, ὥρας θ´. See also Pap. Oxy., iii. 523: ἐρωτᾷ σε Ἀντώνιος Πτολεμαίου διπνῆσαι παρʼ αὐτῷ εἰς κλείνην τοῦ κυρίου Σαράπιδος ἐν τοῖς Κλαυδίου Σαραπίωνος τῇ ις ἀπὸ ὤρας θ´. Cf. Aristides, In Serapidem (Or., viii. p. 93 f., Dind.): καὶ τοίνυν καὶ θυσιῶν μόνῷ τούτῳ θεῷ διαφερόντως κοινωνοῦσιν ἄνθρωποι τὴν ἀκριβῆ κοινωνίαν, καλοῦντες τὲ ἐφʼ ἑστίαν καὶ προιστάμενοι δαίμονα αὐτὸν καὶ ἑστιάτορα. The fullest note on the subject will be found in Lietzmann’s Commentary on 1 Corinthians, p. 124.
1 This much is clear from 1 Corinthians on any hypothesis. The difficulties in the section 1 Corinthians 8:1-10. 33, are not in seeing what were the different points of view among the Corinthians, but in answering the questions (1) Did St. Paul deal with both of them at the same time? or did he, as J. Weiss thinks (see p. 123), deal with one in the “previous letter,” and the other later on in consequence of a misunderstanding of his advice? (2) Can the point of view of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 be regarded as really consistent with that in 1 Corinthians 10:20? Personally, I doubt if it can; but complete consistency is never reached by any one. The solution to the difficulty is psychological, not literary.
2There is a constant confusion of thought in early Christian thought as to idols. On the one hand, there was the argument, derived from the Jewish prophets, that an idol was only an image made by man, and wholly powerless, and that the gods of the Greeks were not gods at all, and had no existence in fact. On the other hand, was the identification of the gods with daemons and fallen angels, and the belief that in some way these daemons were connected with the images of the gods and with the temples. A very instructive passage is Ps. Apuleius, Aselepius, xxxvii.: “Quoniam ergo proavi nostri multum errabant … invenerunt artem qua efficerent deos, cui inventae adjunxerunt virtutem de mundi natura convenientem eamque miscentes, quoniam animas facere non poterant, evocantes animas daemonum vel angelorum, eas indiderunt imaginibus sanctis divinisque mysteriis, per quas idola et benefaciendi et male vires habere potuissent.”
1 J. Weiss sees no difference between φημὶ and λέγω. Surely this is inaccurate; of course, φησὶ and φασὶ are neutral expressions, but I suggest that φημὶ always implies some degree of assent to a proposition, explicit or implicit, and so often comes to mean “I admit.”
1 In 1 Corinthians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 3:1. 1 Corinthians 14:37, πνευματικὸς is used of persons, almost as the equivalent of a substantive; in 1 Corinthians 9:11, 1 Corinthians 14:1, 1 Corinthians 15:46, the neuter is used, but in each case with a distinct reference to a substantive in the context.
3 The German word gives the meaning far better—Lichtstoff.
1 Cf. 1 Corinthians 12:29 ff.
2 Cf. Reitzenstein, p. 137: ὁρκίζω σε, πνεῦμα ἐν ἀέρι φοιτώμενον, εἴσελθε, ἐνπνευμάτωσον, δυνάμωσον, διαέγειρον τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ αἰωνίου θεοῦ τόδε σῶμα. The πνευματικός, himself inspired, is here appealing to the spirit to restore a corpse. The train of thought is not perfectly logical, but there is not much doubt as to what it was.
3Epiph., Haer. 48, 4: ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὡσεὶ λύρα, κἀγὼ ἐφίπταμαι ὡσεὶ πλῆκτρον. ὁ ἄνθρωπος κοιμᾶται, κἀγὼ γρηγορῶ· ἴδοὺ κύριος ἐστιν ὁ ἐξιστάνων καρδίας ἀνθρώπων, κ.τ.λ.
4 Cohortatio ad Graecos, 8; cf. also Athenagoras, Pro Christianis, 9: συγχρησαμένου τοῦ πνεύματος ὡς εἰ καὶ αὐλητὴς αὐλὸν ἐμπνευσαι.
1 Cf. Origen, Contra Celsum, vii. 8, 9; and Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. i. 13, 2 (ed. Massuet).
2See Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Geistes, p. 77, and see
3 2 Corinthians 12:1 ff.
4 This seems to be the meaning of the difficult passage (1 Corinthians 12:2). The text (οἴδατε ὅτι ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ ἄφωνα ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε ἀπαγόμενοι) is certainly corrupt, and probably cannot be emended; but, as Chrysostom saw (cf. Cramer’s Catena, ad loc.), it is a reference to the experiences of obsession among the Corinthians before their conversion, and is intended as the basis of the following argument.
1 Just as the initiate in the Osiris Mysteries spoke of Osiris as Lord and Saviour: it does not, of course, follow that the words meant quite the same, but it explains why there was no difficulty in persuading the Graeco-Roman world of the propriety of these expressions. They are not specifically Christian, but are common to the Mystery Religions.
2 Each of these questions might have been asked about Osiris or any of the other “redeemer-gods,” but, so far as I am aware, there is no evidence that they were raised.
1It is worth noting that St. Paul says πνεύματι ἁγίῳ, not τῷ πνεύματι ἁγιῳ, but I am not sure whether the point will ultimately prove to be really important.
2 Chronologically earlier than Hermas, or (probably) the Didache.
1Cf. Plutarch, Quaest. Rom., 84, p. 267a: συνηθέστερον δὲ ταῖς μεν γυναιξὶν ἐγκεκαλυμμέναις, τοῖς δὲ ἀνδράσιν ἀκαλύπτοις εἰς τὸ δημόσιον προιέναι. Cf. also Dio Chrysostom, who (Or., 33, 48 ff.) rebukes the degeneracy which in Tarsus began to allow women to walk in the streets without a veil covering the face, and points out the dangers of daemons entering by the ears or nose. See also Lietzmann’s note, p. 128.
1 Two points are doubtful in this translation. (α) Does ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ really go with συνερχομένων, or with οὐκ ἔστιν? Commentators are almost unanimous in favour of the former view, but I am not sure that the point is quite certain. (β) What is the meaning of προλαμβάνει? Most commentators say, “takes in advance,” but the evidence of the papyri (see the Expositor for March, 1911) goes to show that it probably only means “take.”
1 1 Corinthians 11:18 ff.
2 Batiffol, Études d’ Histoire et de Thélogie Positive, pp. 277–311.
3 See especially Heitmuller’s Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus. This book is so clear and so thorough that it has an importance out of all proportion to its size.
1 We have to guard against an obscurity of thought due to a change in the meaning of words. “Spirit” is not always a translation of πνεῦμα. One can see this by considering how the ordinary phrase “he has the spirit of St. Paul” would be translated into New Testament Greek. Probably one would write τὰ τοῦ Παύλου φρονεῖ: the obvious ἔχει τὸ πνεῦμα Παύλου would mean something different—“he is inspired by the same supernatural being which was in Paul,” or perhaps, “which Paul has now become.”
1 The question is raised by this expression whether the common phrase in Acts, ἡ κλᾶσις τοῦ ἄρτου, refers to the Eucharist. Personally, I incline to think that it does, but the question is scarcely within the limits of the present work.
2 Cf. the long list of quotations in Leitzmann’s Commentary, pp. 160–164, of which the most important are CIG. ii. 2448; CIL. xviii. 5708; CIL. vi. 10, 234; CIL. xiv. 2112.
1 The only Mystery Religion which had quite certainly anything of this nature was Mithraism. In this there was, alongside of the more typical teaching of the journey of the soul through the heavens, the doctrine of a resurrection of the dead, at the return of Mithra. “Mithra,” says M. Cumont (Les Mystères de Mithra, p. 121), “will redescend and raise up mankind. They will all come forth from their tombs, resume their former appearance, and recognize each other. The entire race will be reunited in a great assembly, and the god of truth will separate the good from the bad. Then, as a last sacrifice, he will slay the divine bull, will mix its flesh with the consecrated wine, and offer to the just this miraculous beverage, which will give them immortality.” But it is not probable that Mithraism was widely spread in Corinth in the first century. The rise of Mithraism was contemporaneous with that of Christianity, and both owed their success greatly to the fact that they stood out from the other Mystery Religions by their ethical character.
1 Cf. Bousset, “Die Himmelsreise der Seele,” in the Archiv fur Religions-wissenschaft, iv. (1901), pp. 136–169 and 229–273. This is a most learned article, and its study is essential to any thorough appreciation of this question.
2 Cf. the Apocalypse of Baruch, chaps. 49.–51. Baruch does not actually say that the dead will become spirits, but he says that they will be transformed into the splendour of the angels; and the angels were certainly not flesh.
1 I think that this means breath, or spirit, but is hardly equal to a change into a spiritual nature.
1 It is interesting to note that this opinion is characteristic of Early Christianity, and is found in many forms. For instance, the explanation given in 1 John of false prophets, is not that they are swindlers or charlatans, but that they are inspired by the wrong sort of spirit. So also says Hermas. Similarly, the Apologists explain the resemblances between Christian and heathen cultus and theology to the imitations of the daemons (who are identical with the gods of the heathens), intending to present misleading and false fulfilments of the prophecies of the Old Testament. (Cf. especially Justin Martyr’s Apology, and Tatian’s Oratio ad Graccos.) The doctrine that the daemons were the source of many mythological stories is not in itself specifically Christian; it is, for instance, found in Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride, p. 360 d). But in Justin Martyr, Tatian, Tertullian, and other Christian writers the view taken was in so far somewhat different in that all the gods of the Gentiles were identified with daemons, and these again with fallen angels.
2 A full discussion of these passages is here impossible; but I incline to the view that, as a matter of fact, there is a real difference between 2 Corinthians 11:4 and Galatians 1:6. In the latter St. Paul seems to say that there really is a difference between his gospel and that of his opponents. In the former he seems to be arguing that his opponents can make no real claim to superiority, because, as a matter of fact, they do not preach a different Jesus, or spirit, or gospel. But I should be sorry to build anything on this view,—or indeed on any other interpretation of these passages.
1 The classical statements are F. C. Baur, “Die Christuspartei in der Korinthischen Gemeinde,” in the Tübingen Zeitschrift, 1831, part 4, pp. 61 ff. Also in his Paulus, 1845, pp. 260 ff.; C. Holsten, Evangelium des Paulus, 1880, pp. 196 ff.; and C. Weizsacher, Apostolisches Zeitalter (2nd edition), pp. 299–311. It is also adopted in the main in the commentaries of A. Klöpper and G. Heinrici. I do not know of any outstanding work in English which defends this position at length, though it is adopted without much discussion by several writers.
1 The value of this evidence is of course increased if, as has been argued above (p. 157), 2 Corinthians 10:1-18, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33, 2 Corinthians 12:1-21, 2 Corinthians 13:1-14 is part of the “severe letter”; but it remains of only slightly less importance if it is St. Paul’s attack on a still rebellious minority.
2 The text of 2 Corinthians 10:10 is rather important: should we read φησί or φασί? If the former, there is a clear reference to some individual opponent. The evidence is not decisive: φησί is found in אDΕϜΓLΚΡ d e boh. aeth.pp; φατί in B fg, Vulg. Syrr. Personally, I am more impressed by the combination אD boh.
1 In this connection the meaning of “delivering to Satan” (1 Corinthians 5:5) is interesting. A full discussion of the point is outside the scope of the present book, but it certainly means something concrete and realistic, and by no means merely the reading of a sentence of excommunication.
2 On the theory that the opponents were Judaizers, it is suggested that the passage means that they had urged that St. Paul had once held the same opinions as themselves. I cannot regard this as at all probable. St. Paul clearly admits that the accusation—which he defines as knowing Christ according to the flesh—was once true. Now, he had once been an anti-Christian Jew, but when had he ever been a Judaizing Christian? The passage seems to me quite unintelligible, except on the hypothesis that St. Paul is dealing with an accusation that he lacked something which his opponents possessed. This is easy to understand if these opponents were πνευματικοί, not if they are Judaizers. The question as to when St. Paul knew Christ according to the flesh remains. Personally, I think he means before the Conversion, but the point is not of crucial importance for the present purpose. See J. Weiss, Paulus und Jesus, pp. 24–26.
1 Long and more or less partizan treatments of the problem from this point of view may be found in Schenkel, De ecclesia Corinthia primaeva factionibus turbata, Bâle, 1838, in Godet’s Commentary, and—far the best statement—in W. Lutgert’s Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth, though the identification of the πνευματικοὶ with the Christ party is very doubtful.
1 Cf. also Acts 15:5
2 As is shown later (see pp.
3 Probably the κατατομή in Philippians refers to Jews, not to Judaizing Christians.
1 The contrast between Galatians and Corinthians is admirably worked out, at considerable length, by Lütgert, Freiheitspredigt und Schwarmgeister in Korinth, pp. 70, 73. He also gives a long discussion of all the various attempts which have been made to explain the contrast.
1 One can form some idea of the real nature of the facts if we ask how many of those who took part in the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832 survived to 1890–1900.
1 Πᾶς δὲ ἀπόστολος ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς δεχθήτω ὡς Κύριος· οὐ μενεῖ δὲ εἰ μὴ ἡμέραν μίαν· ἐὰν δὲ ᾖ χρεία καὶ τὴν ἄλλην· τρεῖς δὲ ἐὰν μείνῃ ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστίν· ἐξερχόμενος δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος μηδὲν λαμβανέτω εἰ μὴ ἄρτον, ἔως οὗ·αὐλισθῇ· ἐὰν δἐ ἀργύριον αἰτῇ ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί. Did., xi .4–6.
1 Let me, however, draw attention to the very valuable contribution of Prof. Reitzenstein, in his Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen.
1 Otherwise St. Paul would not have been able to use them as the foundation of his arguments as he does in 1 Corinthians 10:1-33. (cf. Romans 6:1-23). It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of realizing that, if we want to discover the central points of early Christian doctrine, we must look not at those to which St. Paul devotes pages of argument, but at those which he treats as the premises accepted equally by all Christians. It is from neglecting this principle and constructing a “Paulinismus” exclusively on the basis of the long controversial passages in the Epistles, that critics have found themselves faced by the fact that they can find no other traces of this “Pauline Christianity” in the early Church. The fact that they cannot do so is really the reductio ad absurdum of their reconstructive arguments.