J.M.-O'C., Paul, A Critical Life, Chapter 11.

Confusion at Corinth

Letters To Corinth

The Road From Athens to the Isthmus

The Narrative Of Acts

The Evangelization Of Corinth

A Turbulent Community

Contacts with Corinth

The Kaleidoscope Letter

After leaving Philippi, Paul went to Thessalonica, and thence via Athens to Corinth, where he arrived sometime in the early spring of ad 50. The choice of Corinth as a missionary centre was well motivated,1 and the community he founded there reflected the best features of the dynamic trading city. Its members were committed and enthusiastic, and did not hesitate to accept the responsibility of working out what Christianity meant for them. But they proved to be the most exasperating church with which Paul had to deal. The imprecision of his preaching exacerbated a positive genius on their part for misunderstanding him. Virtually every statement he made took root in their minds in a slightly distorted form, and from this defective seed flowered bizarre approaches to different aspects of the Christian life.

Paul, in consequence, found himself obliged to think much more deeply about a whole array of issues. More importantly for our purposes, the pressures of an extremely turbulent relationship forced to the surface aspects of his personality which are not perceptible elsewhere. The intense emotion which imbued all his dealings with the Corinthians acts as a prism through which facets of his character are refracted in vivid colours. Although Galatians is ostensibly the most autobiographical letter, it remains very much on the surface of things. The external events listed in Galatians 1-2 disclose virtually nothing of the complex nature of the Apostle. The Corinthian correspondence is much more self-revelatory. In it the Apostle unwittingly lays bare his soul.

Letters To Corinth

The intensity of Paul's relationship with the Corinthians is illustrated by the fact that he wrote more letters to them than to any other church. The New Testament contains only two letters, but these mention two others, the Previous Letter (1 Cor. 5:9) and the Painful Letter (2 Cor. 2:4). Hence, four in all. From the end of the eighteenth century, however, doubts have been raised {page 253} regarding the integrity of both 1 and 2 Corinthians. The division of 2 Corinthians into two originally independent letters was postulated in 1776. It took a hundred years for the integrity of 1 Corinthians to be called into question. From that moment hypotheses became ever more complex as fragments from one letter were associated with those from another. This trend in New Testament research reached its climax with the thesis that originally the Corinthian correspondence consisted of nine distinct letters.

It is easy to mock the arbitrariness of such theories. The exaggerations of some practitioners, however, do not invalidate the method. Partition theories are never developed for their own sake; they are designed to account for observations that are made in good faith, and so they deserve to be taken seriously, even if ultimately they do not command assent. The litmus test is: are the internal tensions so great as to destroy the methodological assumption of literary unity? Answers will vary because complete objectivity is impossible; every literary judgement necessarily embodies a subjective element. A detailed evaluation of all the proposals would take us too far afield. None the less, something must be said because the number and order of the letters is obviously fundamental to any reconstruction of Paul's relations with Corinth.

1 Corinthians

1 Corinthians is relatively easy to deal with because the principle on which the partition theories are based can be discerned without difficulty. The salient feature of 1 Corinthians is the absence of any detectable logic in the arrangement of its contents. In some minds this produced an impression of disorder, which was explained by postulating an inept conflation of a number of letters. The key used by such scholars to unlock the secret of the original documents has been the various sources of information which Paul had available to him, namely, Chloe's people (1 Cor. 1:11), the letter sent by the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7:1), and the delegation comprising Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:17). Different parts of 1 Corinthians are combined to create what are considered to be appropriate and internally consistent responses to each one taken singly or in combination.

Once the underlying assumptions are brought out clearly, the fundamental flaw of this methodology becomes apparent. It assumes knowledge superior to that of the author by dictating what he should have said. The resultant letters owe more to the aesthetic sense of the scholar than to any objective factors.

{page 254} Moreover, as G. D. Fee has rightly pointed out, all the so-called internal contradictions in 1 Corinthians can be resolved by a more exacting exegesis. Finally, no satisfactory explanation is ever provided for the procedure, and no justification for the intention of the redactor(s), who gave 1 Corinthians its present shape. It is not surprising, therefore, that the major commentators have been firmly in favour of the unity of 1 Corinthians.

2 Corinthians

Those who maintain the unity of 2 Corinthians are much fewer than those who insist on the integrity of 1 Corinthians. The reason is the radical break between chs. 1-9 and chs. 10-13. It is impossible that Paul should have followed his celebration of his reconciliation with the church of Corinth (chs. 1-9) by a torrent of reproaches and sarcastic self-vindication (chs. 10-13). Even the most committed defenders of the unity of 2 Corinthians have to recognize the force of such observations. How they deal with them is another matter, and the approach of E.-B. Allo is typical. Sometime after finishing chs. 1-9, he claims, Paul received news that intruders at Corinth had spread rumours that he was appropriating funds for Jerusalem for his personal use, and that the community there had not come to his defence. In reaction, we are told, he wrote the blistering attack in chs. 10-13 and attached it to chs. 1-9.

This hypothesis redefines the concept of literary unity in such a way as to make it meaningless. If chs. 10-13 were written after a certain interval, and motivated by a concern other than that animating chs. 1-9, it is a separate letter by normal standards. Were chs. 1-9 still in Paul's possession, when the information arrived, the anger bubbling to the surface in chs. 10-13 makes it more likely that he would have torn up chs. 1-9, and sent only chs. 10-13. Allo's reconstruction is psychologically impossible.

The view that chs. 1-7 exhibit a complete rhetorical argument, and that, in consequence, chs. 8-9 are superfluous and must be treated as a later addition, since they are too long to be a postscript, is contradicted by a letter of Cicero to Atticus (Att. 12. 28-9), in which the postscript is proportionately much longer than 2 Corinthians 8-9 relative to chs. 1-7. Rhetorical criticism is also {page 255} invoked to prove that 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 were originally independent letters by claiming that each exhibits the rhetorical schema. This is not in fact the case.

The overlap between the 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 does, however, require an explanation. The shift into the first-person singular at the beginning of ch. 9, when coupled with the parallel in structure with Galatians 6:11-18, where a personal appeal also shades into a profound theological argument, identifies ch. 9 as a personal postscript authenticating the letter. This was as much part of Paul's epistolary technique as it was of that of his contemporaries.

If 2 Corinthians 1-9 and 2 Corinthians 10-13 are two letters, which was written first? A significant number of scholars follow A. Hausrath, who in 1870 argued that chs. 10-13 should be identified with the Painful Letter mentioned in 2 Corinthians 2:4. The most able defence of this hypothesis is that of F. Watson, but his arguments ultimately fail to carry conviction.

2 Corinthians 10-13 was occasioned by an attack on Paul's apostolic authority by Judaizing intruders, a subject which is never evoked in what Paul says of the Painful Letter. Equally, the issue which gave rise to the Painful Letter was an insult to Paul by an individual; this is not even hinted at in chs. 10-13. Finally, 2 Corinthians 10-13 was written in preparation for a visit to Corinth in the immediate future, Paul's third (12:14; 13:1-2), whereas the Painful Letter was written as a substitute for a visit, which Paul had promised on his second visit but then refused to make (2 Cor. 2:1-4).

The other missing letter is that mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9. Hering identified 2 Corinthians 6:14 to 7:1 as part of this epistle, and he has been followed by others, who expand it with material drawn from 1 Corinthians. This thesis has been facilitated by the impression that this block of material breaks the connection between 2 Corinthians 6:13 and 7:2. Many in fact treat it as a post-Pauline interpolation of Essene inspiration. In fact, however, the so-called Essene linguistic parallels are much inferior to those drawn from the language of the Diaspora synagogue which is best represented by Philo. When understood in this sense, 6:14 to 7:1 fits perfectly into the argument of 2 Corinthians 1-9.

To draw together the strands of this discussion, Paul wrote five letters to Corinth: (1) the lost Previous Letter; (2) 1 Corinthians; (3) the lost Painful Letter; (4) 2 Corinthians 1-9; and (5) 2 Corinthians 10-13. The relative order of nos. 1 and 2 has been established, as has that of nos. 3-5. The one question remaining open is the relationship of 1 Corinthians to letters 3-5.

{page 256} If we abstract from theories which completely dismember 1 and 2 Corinthians, no one (to the best of my knowledge) has suggested that 1 Corinthians should be dated after either of the component elements of 2 Corinthians. The principal argument for the traditional arrangement is the references to the collection for the poor of Jerusalem. In 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, in response to a request from the Corinthians, Paul gives practical directives as to how the money at Corinth should be assembled. From 2 Corinthians 8-9, however, it is clear nothing had in fact been done even though a year had elapsed; their commitment had to be revived (9:2).

Moreover, 1 Corinthians gives the impression that it is Paul's first contact with Corinth since his founding visit. Many problems have accumulated. All his information is second-hand. And he has had to send Timothy, who is not listed in the address of the letter (1:1), to provide an independent assessment of the situation there (4:17; 16:10-11). From 2 Corinthians 1-9, on the contrary, we learn that Timothy is again with Paul (1:1), and that the latter has been recently in Corinth, a visit whose bitter consequences totally exclude its identification with the founding visit (2:1-4). Moreover, Paul's planned visit to Macedonia (1 Cor. 16:5) from Ephesus was actually made via Corinth (2 Cor. 1:16).

The Road From Athens To The Isthmus

The reasons for Paul's move from Athens to Corinth have been discussed already in the context of his correspondence with Thessalonica. Now we must look at his first visit there in some detail.

In order to get from Athens to Corinth, Paul and his companions, Timothy and Silas (2 Cor. 1:19) had two options. They could go by land or by sea. Ships plied regularly between Piraeus and Schoenus or Cenchreae via the island of Salamis. Delays, however, were frequent. Bad weather, adverse winds, or simply bad omens impeded departure. The sea route, therefore, could take as long as the two-day land route via Megara. Since Paul's contemporaries undertook a sea voyage solely when it was the only way to get from one place to another, or when it offered immense savings of time and energy, there is little doubt that the Apostle opted for the overland route.

{page 257} When Paul set out from Athens he had a walk of some 80 km. (50 miles) ahead of him, a route rich in religious associations, but whose danger was underlined by the epic deeds of Theseus. At every step of the way there was something to remind the Apostle of the religious and political history of Greece. For the first 22 km. (14 miles) his path followed the Sacred Way to Eleusis, along which passed the great procession each autumn to honour Demeter. Once he reached the shore of the Eleusinian Gulf he had on his right the salt-water fish-ponds sacred to the Maid and Demeter, and the Rharian meadow, the first place ever sown or cropped, according to Greek legend. To balance such tranquil scenery memory carried the story of Procrustes, a brigand who made his victims fit his bed by racking the short and amputating the long. One may doubt that Paul wasted time admiring the great sanctuary at Eleusis. His concern must have been to reach Megara, 19 km. (12 miles) further on, before nightfall. It would have been an exceptionally long day's walk.

That night Paul's thoughts would have been concentrated, not on the problems that would face him on arrival at Corinth, but on the first part of his journey next day, which presented a more immediate threat. The 8 km. (5 miles) section of the road known as the Sceironian Rocks is described by Strabo:

They leave no room for a road along the sea, but the road from the Isthmus to Megara and Attica passes above them. However, the road approaches so close to the rocks that it many places it passes along the edge of precipices, because the mountain situated above them is both lofty and impracticable for roads.  (Geography 9.1.4; trans. Jones)

According to Pausanias the track was hewn for active men and was enlarged into a real road only by Hadrian. Its association with bandits did not end when Theseus threw Sceiron into the sea. He had been a robber who forced travellers to wash his feet and, as they finished, kicked them over the cliff. In Paul's day it was a place in which he certainly experienced 'danger from robbers ... dangers in the wilderness' (2 Cor. 11:26).

Once Paul reached Crommyon (today Hagios Theodoros) he was in Corinthian territory, in an area associated with two further exploits of Theseus, the slaughter of the sow Phaea and the execution of the bandit Sinis by the technique he himself used to dispose of his victims; he was torn in two when the bent pine trees to which his legs were tied were allowed to spring up.28

 {page 258} At Schoenus Paul had his first experience of the dynamism of Corinth. If the isthmus was a land-bridge, permitting trade to flow easily between the Peloponnese and the Greek mainland, it was a barrier to east-west shipping, and mariners needed an alternative to the long route around the Peloponnese. As early as the sixth century bc, the Corinthians thought of cutting a canal. Like later plans, this project came to nothing, and an ingenious, provisional solution remained in place for 1,300 years. The Corinthians laid a paved road, the diolkos, to join the Corinthian and Saronic gulfs. About 400 metres of the road have been excavated on the west side of the Isthmus. The width varies from 3.4 to 6 metres. Grooves cut in the paving 1.5 metres apart guided the wheels of the wooden platform (the holkos), on which small boats and goods were hauled across the isthmus. Earthen tracks on either side were used by pack animals.

The jostling, shouting multitude of labourers along this road, through whom Paul had to push his way, would have been his first concrete perception of what life at Corinth was going to be like. Thus far he had encountered nothing similar. The provincial towns of Asia and Macedonia were, by comparison, sleepy oases of leisure, in which his mission would have been an agreeable distraction. Corinth had more business than it could comfortably handle. The immense volume of trade was augmented by huge numbers of travellers. Profit came easily to those prepared to work hard, and cut-throat competition ensured that only the committed survived. Would people so busy and preoccupied, so eager in their pursuit of gain, have any time to listen to his message? The obstacles appeared greater than those he encountered at Athens, where at least he was given a hearing (Acts 17:16-34).

Once through the crowds, Paul found himself in a different world. The road led to the sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia with its temple, theatre, and stadium. Paul cannot have been unaware that this was the scene of the Isthmian Games, one of the four great pan-Hellenic festivals, which was cele- {page 259} brated every two years in the late spring. Perhaps there were still traces of the games of ad 49 celebrated some nine months earlier. He was too mature for his blood to stir at the thought of the dry celery crowns awarded the victors. If anything, he thought of the unity that the festival achieved among Greeks from all over the known world. As he marvelled at what the games did for Greek identity, did he pray that the members of his far-flung churches would feel united by a bond equally vivid and secure?

Such spiritual thoughts would have been complemented by the grateful realization that he should have little difficulty finding work in Corinth. During the week of the festival visitors thronged the area and all Corinth went out to serve and to celebrate with them. The former needed tents in which to stay, and the latter brought booths in which to display their wares. A good tent-maker would find plenty to do. Repairs were as necessary as the manufacture of new tents, and the next Isthmian Games were only fifteen months away. The lift of the heart caused by the solution to one of his many problems carried him easily up the final 10 km. (6 miles) to the city (see Fig. 5).

The Narrative Of Acts

Paul's sojourn in Corinth is recounted in some detail in Acts 18:1-18. Unfortunately, this account cannot be accepted at face value. Not only do we have the problem of two textual traditions (the Western and the Alexandrian), but the narrative abounds in hints of redactional activity. Luke's account of Paul's ministry at Corinth is in fact a many-layered text.

The most primitive story narrated only an abortive attempt to convert Jews, after which Paul was consoled by a vision of Christ, whose efficacious protection was immediately demonstrated by the refusal of Gallio to hear the charge laid against Paul by the Jews. I see no reason to refuse the historicity of the events narrated in this document. Manifestly, however, it is not a complete account of Paul's founding visit to Corinth. That much has been omitted is indicated by the fact that Paul both stayed a considerable time and made many converts (18:18).

{page 261}

Working with Prisca and Aquila

Redactional additions fill out the story. The first introduces Prisca and Aquila as Paul's hosts (18:2-3). This should be accepted as historical fact because, as we have seen, 1 Corinthians 16:19 demonstrates that they had been in Corinth and that they were particularly close to Paul. According to the Western text, however, the reason why Paul stayed with them was that he had previously known Aquila, since they belonged to the same tribe. This is corrected in the Alexandrian text, which presents Paul as joining them because they were of the same trade.

The former is suspiciously like a deduction from a coincidence. Both were of the tribe of Benjamin (or simply Jews; cf. Acts 10:28), hence they must have known each other! Where they might have made each other's acquaintance is conveniently passed over in silence. As far as our sources go, their paths had never crossed. Recognition of this difficulty explains the Alexandrian version; 'he came to them because he was of the same trade and he remained with them and he/they worked, for they were tentmakers by trade' (18:3).

The last clause apparently has only Prisca and Aquila in view; its function is to explain 'same trade'. J.J. Taylor argues that logic dictates that the same couple are the subject in 'they worked'. In which case there would be no mention of Paul's manual labour; 'he lodged with them' but 'they worked'. The continuation of the narrative makes it certain that the redactor did not intend this contrast. The money brought by Silas and Timothy, the editor lets us understand, made it possible for Paul to give up manual labour and to give himself full time to the ministry of the word (18:5); previously he had preached only on the sabbath (18:4). The scribe who transformed the plural into 'he worked' realized the necessity of avoiding a false impression. Common sense militates against strict grammatical logic in such constructions. Paul worked side by side with Prisca and her husband as a tent-maker.

Can any confidence be placed in this information, which entered the narrative so late? What is secondary from a literary point of view does not necessarily imply fabrication. In this case invention can be excluded. Not only did the trade of tent-making have no symbolic connotations, but the occupation of Paul, Aquila and Prisca must have been well known in Greece, Asia and Italy (Rom. 16:3). Falsification would have brought ridicule. Silence is another matter. It is entirely possible that the Western text was motivated by a concern to raise Paul's social status by refusing to acknowledge the manual labour by which the Apostle himself claimed to earn his living (1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8; 1 Cor. 4:12).

 {page 262}

 Silas and Timothy

The second redactional addition brings Silas and Timothy on the scene (18:5). The consequence for the story-line is that Paul is presented as having ministered alone in Corinth for some time before being joined by his companions. From a historical point of view this is most implausible. As I have argued above, the anxiety displayed in Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians guarantees that he remained in Athens until Timothy's return from Macedonia. It is inconceivable that Paul would have made himself difficult to find by moving to another city, particularly one as large as Corinth. If anything he would have moved north to anticipate Timothy's arrival, as he later did in the case of Titus (2 Cor. 2:12-13). Silvanus and Timothy were Paul's companions when he arrived in Corinth and participated in the evangelization of Corinth from the very beginning (2 Cor. 1:19).

This conclusion calls into question two elements in the revised narrative, namely, the influx of funds which made it unnecessary for Paul to work, and so facilitated his move to a more up-market address (18:5, 7). Timothy's mission to Macedonia had only one objective, namely, to reinforce the faith of the Thessalonians and to report back to Paul as quickly as possible (1 Thess. 3:1-10). It was not the moment to solicit financial support, even if the Thessalonians had surplus funds, something which is far from certain (cf. Phil. 4:15). While working in Thessalonica Paul had to be aided by the Philippians (Phil. 4:16). Moreover, it is highly improbable that Timothy exceeded his mandate by making a visit to Philippi from Thessalonica. The five-day journey each way, and a stay of several days, would have increased his already long absence from Athens by nearly three weeks. It is not impossible that some Philippians arrived in Thessalonica with a subsidy for Paul while Timothy happened to be there, but history has nothing to do with such wishful coincidences. Nothing suggests that, when the three missionaries arrived in Corinth, they had full pockets. They needed to find work, and quickly.

A Change of Location

As regards Paul's move (18:7), the first redactor (in the Western text) says, 'Moving from Aquila's house he departed to the house of Justus', whereas his successor (in the Alexandrian text) notes, 'moving from there [the synagogue] he came to the house of a man called Titius Justus'. The former implies a change of residence, whereas the latter means only that he taught at a different location.

{page 263} The Western text is suspect because, from a literary point of view, it is a rather blatant symbol of a change in Paul's policy. Not only does he no longer preach to Jews but he does not even live among them!

In reality, it must be assumed that Prisca and Aquila were Christians, whom Paul would never have abandoned for the sake of a symbolic gesture. This couple were ex-slaves of Jewish origin, who had decided to leave Italy in ad 41, after the emperor Claudius had closed down a Roman synagogue as a result of continuous turmoil centring on the figure of Christ. Jewish refugees who had lost everything through the machinations of Christian missionaries in Rome would hardly have given work and shelter in Corinth to the same sort of missionary, namely Paul. Finally, it is certain that they were not converted by Paul in Greece (1 Cor. 16:15).

If, as seems most likely, Prisca and Aquila were believers, the Alexandrian text can be seen as the correction of the Western text in the interests of historical probability. As Paul's ministry expanded, particularly among God-fearers, the enmity of the Jews increased, and it became progressively impossible to preach in the synagogue; he had only to open his mouth to be shouted down.

The sort of little shops which artisans such as Prisca and Aquila occupied were scattered all over the city. They lined busy streets and were concentrated in specially built commercial developments. The Peribolos of Apollo just off the Lechaeum Road was the oldest such market in the city. Shortly before Paul arrived, the North Market was completed, and its arrangement is so typical as to serve as a valid illustration of the conditions under which Paul lived and worked in Corinth and later in Ephesus.

The shops gave on to a wide, covered gallery running round all four sides of the square. They had a uniform height and depth of 4 m. (13 feet). The width varied from 2.8 m. (8 feet) to 4 m. (13 feet). There was no running water or toilet facilities. In one of the back corners, a series of steps in stone or brick was continued by a wooden ladder to a loft lit by an unglazed window centred above the shop entrance, which at night was closed by wooden shutters. Prisca and Aquila had their home in the loft, while Paul slept below amid the tool-strewn work-benches and the rolls of leather and canvas.

The workshop was perfect for initial contacts, particularly with women. While Paul worked on a cloak, or sandal, or belt, he had the opportunity for conversation which quickly became instruction (cf. 1 Thess. 2:9), and further {page 264} encounters were easily justified by the need for new pieces or other repairs. As his ministry expanded, however, something more suitable was required. The space in the workshop was so limited that work had to stop if he addressed a group, and the assembly inevitably attracted the attention of passers-by. The lack of privacy precluded intimate discussions. Only the house of a relatively wealthy believer with its atrium and spacious rooms would provide the necessary space and seclusion. As we shall see shortly, Paul's first converts at Corinth were precisely such people. The fact that the owner of the house, (Titius) Justus, is not listed among them (cf. 1 Cor. 1:14-16) might suggest that he came on the scene at a later stage.

Many Conversions

The Western text expands the very brief reference to converts in the original source ('brethren', Acts 18:18) by an allusion to the conversion of a major figure associated with a synagogue, Crispus, together with his entire household, and a 'great crowd of Corinthians' (18:8). The two events are simply juxtaposed. A causal relationship is excluded by the explicit mention that the latter were converted by the word of the Lord. The Alexandrian text, however, makes the former the cause of the latter. Most commentators accept the historicity of the conversion of Crispus, because he is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:14. It is undeniable that such an event must have had an impact on the God-fearers associated with the synagogue. The conclusion drawn by the Alexandrian text was perhaps inevitable. The conversion of an eminent Jewish personage can only have enhanced the credibility of a message which promised the purity of monotheism without the disadvantages of circumcision and dietary laws.

The source also mentions another synagogue personage, Sosthenes, who was beaten up after the failure of the Jewish appeal to Gallio (18:17). The survival of this scrap of information probably implies that he subsequently became a Christian. In opposition to Crispus, there is a certain hesitancy about identifying this individual with the Sosthenes who appears as co-sender of 1 Corinthians. The fact that the name is widespread, however, has to be weighed against the only possible reason why Sosthenes should be cited by Paul as a coauthor in this one instance, namely, intimate knowledge of the factionalization of the Corinthian community.

The number of converts is also explained by the temporal precision. The 'many days' of the source is specified as 'one year and six months' (18:11). The intrinsic plausibility of this figure is its strongest recommendation. Given the {page 265} limitations on travel, it would have been pointless to spend less time in such a great city. Paul would have arrived in Corinth in ad 50, when spring opened the roads to travellers, and left just before the end of the sailing season in ad 51. Having seen what can with some justification be accepted as historical in Acts 18:1-18, we now have to integrate it with data from the letters to build up a picture of the evangelization of Corinth.

The Evangelization Of Corinth

If Paul foresaw employment in Corinth, as he recalled the demands of the Isthmian Games, he could not have imagined that he would find it with fellow-Christians. He and his companions were used to operating in virgin territory, and this custom eventually became a principle (Rom. 15:20). How long he walked the streets of Corinth before finding Prisca and Aquila we can never know (Acts 18:1-3).

Perhaps they took him in, not because they needed help, but because they saw his craft as shared ground that would facilitate the conversion of a fellow-Jew. It is easy to imagine the stunned amazement when they realized that they were all followers of Christ. Paul must have been as disconcerted as Prisca and Aquila were overjoyed. They had had to struggle for the faith for nine years with only the rudimentary information acquired during their conversion process in Rome, and now they found themselves hosts, not only to an authorized emissary, but one who had been in Jerusalem!

The First Converts

Paul names the household of Stephanas as 'the first fruit of Achaia' (1 Cor. 16:15), and lists that same household as one of the very few which he himself had baptized (1 Cor. 1:16). If Paul made the first converts in Corinth, it means that Prisca and Aquila had not been successful as missionaries during their years in Corinth. One may wonder whether they had even tried. Their experience in Rome might have proved so traumatic that they felt inadequate to communicate their faith to others. They may have slid back into the life of the Jewish community, while still retaining the memory of Jesus whom they had accepted as the Messiah.

The arrival of Paul changed all that. The faith of Prisca and Aquila was given a new impetus, and they became two of the most committed members of his missionary team, even to the extent of risking their lives (Rom. 16:4). They {page 266}

prepared the way for Paul in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:19). and subsequently in Rome (Rom. 16:3).

The fact that he was operating from a small workshop makes it most surprising that those whom Paul remembered baptizing were all from a superior class. The prejudice of such people against manual labourers is well documented. The leadership role assumed by Stephanas and his family in the community (1 Cor. 16:15) implies a degree of leisure difficult to associate with those who had to sweat for every morsel of food. If there is a deliberate contrast with the authority of charismatic gifts, as W. Meeks maintains, their contribution must have been in the form of benefactions. Equally the freedom of Stephanas to take part in the delegation to Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:17) means either that he was successfully self-employed or did not need to work.

Crispus (1 Cor. 1:14) is identified by Acts 18:8 as an archisynagogos. The title is not legally defined, and the common assumption that he was responsible for the public worship of the congregation61 is not justified by the data. All that one can say, in the light of Jewish inscriptional evidence, is that it was an honorific title awarded by a community in gratitude for a donation to their place of prayer (e.g. a whole building or parts thereof, a mosaic floor, a chancel screen, mural and ceiling paintings). Since sufficient superfluous wealth to become a patron was the only qualification the title could be given to a man or a woman. Or even to a non-Jew. The title was also used in specifically pagan contexts, with the meaning 'master of a guild or company'. Absolutely speaking, therefore, Crispus may have been a God-fearer and not a Jew. In any case, he certainly was not a poor man.

Gaius (1 Cor. 1:14) is also mentioned in Romans 16:23 as 'host to me and to the whole church'. The adjective 'whole' is unnecessary if the Corinthian Christians met only as a single group (cf. 1 Cor. 14:23). Other sub-groups must have existed, and these can only have been house-churches on a smaller scale, 'the church in the home of X' (e.g. Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2). An extra-large house was necessary to accommodate the entire community. Gaius, in consequence, must have been wealthier than the average believer.

It can hardly be coincidence that the few, whom Paul recalls having baptized at the very beginning of his ministry at Corinth, happened to be just the very {page 268} sort of people who could be of use to him. He had the practical sense to recognize that, while the gospel was offered to all, only those with initiative, leisure, and education could function as effective assistants in the spread of the gospel. Slaves might be model Christians, but they were not their own masters. They could not dispose of their time as they wished. Neither could Prisca and Aquila, who had a living to earn.

It would almost appear that Paul was deliberately following the recruiting policy of Jesus. His first disciples were Peter and Andrew, who were not 'uneducated, common men' (Acts 4:13). Andrew had a purely Greek name, suggesting a bilingual family (cf. John 12:20-2). The brothers worked in partnership (Luke 5:7) with James and John, the sons of Zebedee (Luke 5:10), who had employees (Mark 1:20). One has the impression that they owned their own boats (Luke 5:11). The brothers had moved from their hometown, Bethsaida (John 1:44), in the territory of Philip, to Capernaum (Mark 1:29) in the territory of Antipas, because they then paid less to have their fish processed for export at Magdala/Taricheae. They could afford to let others do the fishing in order to remain in Judaea as disciples of John the Baptist (John 1:40-1). From our perspective they would be described as upper middle class, even though that terminology is anachronistic as regards the first century.

By the time he reached Corinth, therefore, it would appear that Paul had worked out a careful missionary strategy. In order to get anywhere quickly, he realized that the nascent church needed a solid nucleus of those who were in a position to furnish facilities, precisely the sort of person typified by Justus in the Lukan account (Acts 18:7). A place of assembly was only one advantage. The house of Gaius was apparently the place where Tertius (the secretary of Gaius?) took down in shorthand Paul's dictation of the letter to the Romans; the host added his name when he heard others fill up the page with their greetings (Rom. 16:23).

Paul's attitude to this nucleus of wealthy individuals in the Corinthian community was complex. While availing himself of the facilities they offered, he refused to permit himself to become dependent on them. He continued to support himself as best he could, and supplemented his income by gifts from Macedonia, in order to retain his independence (1 Cor. 9:1- 18; 2 Cor. 11:7-9). This willingness to take from Corinthian believers, but only in a very limited way, was to become a bone of contention at a later stage.

Status Inconsistency

It is not known when another prominent member of the community became a believer. The epistle to the Romans also includes greetings from {page 269}'Erastus oikonomos of the city' (16:23). He is the only convert whose civil status is mentioned by Paul. This may be because it was exceptionally high, but it might have been evoked merely to distinguish this Erastus from others (2 Tim. 4:20; Acts 19:22).

Resolution of the problem is facilitated by the discovery of an ad 50-100 inscription, cut into the pavement between the North Market and the theatre at Corinth, which read '[...] Erastus in return for his aedileship paved (this

area) at his own expense'. Apart from Romans 16:23 and the inscription, the name Erastus is not attested at Corinth and, unless one is prepared to accept the extraordinary coincidence that two individuals bearing the same unusual name both held public office in the same city at roughly the same time, their identity should be taken for granted.

To be an aedile, one of the four magistrates who governed the city, it was necessary to be a Roman citizen. The absence of any mention of the father of Erastus in the inscription suggests that he had once been a slave. Manifestly Erastus was one of those energetic freedmen, who flourished in the vigourously competitive atmosphere of Corinth, and who had the surplus funds which enabled him to undertake public office. The normal translation of aedile in Greek, however, is agoranomos, not oikonomos, whence the well-founded suggestion that the latter was the equivalent of the Latin quaestor, an inferior financial position in the municipal hierarchy. Naturally, to accede to higher office one must have proved oneself in lower ones, and inscriptions reveal the office of quaestor to be a stepping-stone to that of aedile, as the latter was to that of duovir.

Romans 16:23, therefore, reveals Erastus at an early stage of his public career, which apparently was not affected in any way by his conversion to Christianity! We must assume that he somehow found a way to reconcile his new monotheistic belief with his duty to participate in the worship of the gods of the city; every meeting of the city council involved a pagan sacrifice. He may have seen it as a purely formal gesture without any real religious significance, as did his fellow-Christians who had no difficulty in eating meat offered to idols, because 'idols have no real existence' and 'there is no God but one' (1 Cor. 8:4). Only later did participation in pagan rituals become a test of the faith.

Whatever be the answer, the figure of Erastus gives us a privileged insight {page 270} into a section of the population of Corinth into which Christianity made inroads. However much Erastus may have achieved, he would never have felt fully at ease among the free-born. As with others of his class, the stigma of his servile origins blighted every pleasure. The fear of being patronized provoked an injudicious aggressiveness. The sense of insecurity of the successful freed-man became a favourite topic in literature. Everyone knew instances of the affected culinary expertise of Nasidenus, and of the pretentious learning of Trimalchio. Corinth had its own celebrated example. A small circular structure on the agora carried the same inscription on both the pedestal and the band above the columns, 'Gnaeus Babbius Philinus, aedile and pontifex, had this monument erected at his own expense, and he approved it in his official capacity of duovir'. He was not prepared to take the chance that his successor as chief magistrate might refuse the exercise in self-recommendation!

The root of such insecurity was the bitter awareness that one was not recognized for what one had achieved. Contemporaries, it was felt, imposed on the reality an unflattering portrait drawn from other sources. Erastus imagined that those who looked at him saw not the quaestor but merely an ex-slave. Freedmen, however, were not the only ones to feel the discomfort of ambiguous status. Phoebe of Cenchreae, though of sufficient independent wealth to be a patron to Paul and many others (Rom. 16:2), would have been seen first and foremost as a woman, with the social and political disadvantages her sex implied. The pagan Justus experienced a dissonance in his own society which drove him to association with the synagogue (Acts 18:7). Prisca and Aquila had the authority of needed experts, and Crispus and Sosthenes held responsible positions, but to their pagan neighbours they were above all Jews, who resided among them on sufferance.

One factor that made the gospel attractive to such people was that it embodied the paradox they lived. Its central thesis that the saviour of the world died under torture spoke to the contradictions of their existence. Though classed as weak they knew their own power, and thus could understand without difficulty the idea, revealed in the life of Christ, as in that of Paul, that 'power is made perfect in weakness' (2 Cor. 12:9). To them Christianity made sense of {page 271} the ambiguity of their lives, and at the same time introduced them into a society committed to looking at them primarily as people, all equally valuable and valued. It gave them a space in which they could flourish in freedom.

The Composition of the Community

More is known about the composition of the Corinthian church than of any other except that of Rome. It is the one case in which Paul tells us something of the social structure of the group. The names of many individuals can be drawn from 1 Corinthians, Romans, and Acts.

'By the standards of the world, not many of you were wise, not many were powerful, not many were well born' (1 Cor. 1:26). Despite subtle attempts to find in these words the description of specific philosophical groupings, the sociological interpretation is demanded by common sense. The 'wise' are the educated, and in particular those with a reputation for prudence and moderation, who exhibit sound judgement in politics or commerce. The 'powerful' are the influential, those whose opinions carry weight in civic life. The 'well born' are those born into the aristocracy of wealth80 created by the freedmen who were sent by Julius Caesar to found Corinth. The overlap of the three terms needs no emphasis, and they carry the further connotation of freedom. With admirable brevity Paul evokes a privileged elite, whose impact on Corinth was quite out of proportion to its numbers. It members were a minority in the city, just as were those from this class who became Christians; some of these have been named above. These latter no doubt played a dominant role in the affairs of the church; those who take their authority for granted do not need official positions to reinforce it.

The majority of believers were not so fortunate, but neither were they at the bottom of the the social scale. Among the unnamed members of the 'households' of Stephanas and Crispus, it is very probable that there were slaves (1 Cor. 7:21). While legally disadvantaged, such house slaves often enjoyed a standard of living and education denied to those born free, and could look forward to exercising their trained talents in freedom. Only then would they have to provide for themselves; a slave was guaranteed food and lodging.

{page 272}

The secretarial ability of Tertius (Rom. 16:22) put him in the same class as Tiro, the famous secretary of Cicero. His skill made him valuable. If not a freed-man already, he would certainly earn that status some day. Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:17) is a nickname, 'the man from Achaia', and thus is more likely to have belonged to a slave than to a freeman. Evidently it was acquired outside Achaia, and its Latin form would suggest somewhere to the west. In all probability he had been a slave in Italy, and returned to Corinth as a freedman. His participation in the delegation to Ephesus suggests at least that he was master of his own time. The same is true of Fortunatus (1 Cor. 16:17). Nothing is known of Quartus (Rom. 16:23); the name is common among slaves and freedmen.

There is some doubt whether Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater (Rom. 16:21) were members of the church of Corinth or just happened to be there when the writing of Romans was coming to a conclusion. The formulation separates them from Timothy, who is identified as Paul's co-worker. In consequence, they cannot be considered part of Paul's missionary team. A Sopater (possibly an abbreviated form of Sosipater) of Beroea appears in Acts 20:4 as one of those accompanying Paul to Jerusalem with the money collected for the poor of Jerusalem (cf. 1 Cor. 16:1-4). He, like Jason, is explicitly identified as a Jew. The latter may be the individual who hosted Paul at Thessalonica (Acts 17:5-7). The possibility that these two were collection delegates of their respective churches has suggested that the same is true of Lucius. This individual is commonly identified as the Luke mentioned in Colossians 4:14, Philemon 24, and 2 Timothy 4:11, but why Paul should use the form 'Luke' in all these instances and then switch to 'Lucius' here is never explained. Moreover, were Luke in question he would have been grouped with Timothy rather than with the other two because of his long-standing association with Paul. The hypothesis that we have to do with three delegates cannot be excluded, but neither is there anything in its favour. In consequence, I prefer to consider them Corinthians.

It is unlikely that Chloe's people (1 Cor. 1:11) were from Corinth. The issues on which they report were not problems for the Corinthians themselves, e.g. divisions within the community and the way some men and women wore their hair at the liturgical assemblies. These matters, which were of crucial {page 273} importance for Paul, were not mentioned in the letter (1 Cor. 7:1) brought by the official delegation from Corinth (1 Cor. 16:15-17). On the contrary, they are the sort of departures from the norm which have a great impact on visitors from another church, in this case Ephesus, and.about which they would have been most eager to gossip when they returned home. Moreover, were Chloe's people Corinthians who had gone behind the community's back to run to Paul with tales, it would have been most insensitive of the latter to mention the source of his information; it could only make mischief.

Of the members of the church at Corinth we know 16 individuals by name. Two of them (Prisca and Aquila) are married to each other. Two are women (Prisca and Phoebe). Six are explicitly of Jewish origin (Aquila, Crispus, Prisca, Sosthenes, Jason, Sosipater). Two are certainly Gentiles (Erastus, Justus). From these last two sets of figures it might appear that one could infer that Jewish believers predominated in the community. Any such extrapolation, however, is flatly excluded by the type of problems with which Paul has to deal in 1 Corinthians-appeal to pagan courts (6:1-11); frequentation of prostitutes (6:12-20); marriage and sex (7); participation in pagan temple meals (8-10)-and by his explicit statements that the majority of the community had at one time been idolaters (6:10-11; 8:7; 12:2).

The predominant group in the Corinthian church was made up of Gentiles of various grades of the middle of the social scale. Only the very top (great magnates) and the very bottom (field slaves) of that scale were lacking. Jews were a minority, but two at least (Crispus and Sosthenes) stood out from the group.

A Turbulent Community

The potential for dissension within the community is evident. Most members had in common only their Christianity. They differed widely in educational attainment, financial resources, religious background, political skills, and above all in their expectations. A number were attracted to the church because it seemed to offer them a new field of opportunity, in which the talents whose expression society frustrated could be exploited to the full. They were energetic and ambitious people, and there was little agreement among their various hidden agendas. A certain competitive spirit was part of the ethos of the church from the beginning.

{page 274}

The Arrival of Apollos

According to Acts 18:24-8, Apollos came to Corinth from Ephesus some time after Paul's departure for Jerusalem in the late summer of ad 51. In saying 'I planted, Apollos watered' (1 Cor. 3:6), Paul explictly confirms that Apollos exercised a ministry subsequent to his own in Corinth. Paul also tells us that Apollos was with him in Ephesus at the time of writing 1 Cor. 16:12. Nothing similar appears in Acts which, however, tells us much more about this personage. How should it be evaluated?

According to Boismard and Lamouille there is nothing in the Western text of Acts 18:24-8 which betrays the hand of a redactor. It is all of one piece, they assert, and its style points to Luke as the author. The narrative, however, exhibits two serious internal contradictions, the first concerning Apollos' status as a Christian, the second his mission to Corinth. (1) Apollos taught accurately about Jesus (18:25). None the less he needed further instruction (18:26). In addition, how could he speak accurately about Jesus, when he knew only the baptism of John (18:25)? (2) Apollos was invited to return with them by Corinthians resident at Ephesus. None the less the Ephesians wrote a letter requesting that he be received at Corinth (18:27). He had no need of a letter of recommendation, however, since he was accompanied by Corinthians.

The Alexandrian text of this passage resolves the latter problem by making Apollos take the initiative in going to Achaia. Why Apollos chose to go to Achaia is not explained. It might have been better had the Alexandrian text suppressed the mention of a letter of recommendation, because that would have made it obvious that a single hypothesis can explain the two contradictions.

The awkwardness of the clause, 'knowing only the baptism of John' (18:25b) is manifest; it is simply juxtaposed to what precedes. Were a single author to have written the whole verse one would have expected something like, 'Although he knew only the baptism of John, he none the less taught accurately the things concerning Jesus.' The function of the allusion to John's baptism in the narrative is to justify further instruction, 'Aquila took him and explained the Way to him more accurately' (18:26b); there had to be a defect to be remedied. Apollos has been transformed from an unattached Christian of uncertain antecedents into a bearer of the Pauline gospel. The point is reinforced by having the Ephesians write a formal letter of recommendation for him. He has become an emissary of a Pauline church. Thoroughly domesticated, and integrated into a recognized channel of church development, he is now free to go his own way.

{page 275}

When purged of the elements which impose a specific pattern of development on the growth of the church (cf. Acts 1:8), the Apollos story becomes perfectly coherent. The failure to rebaptize him in the name of Jesus (cf. 19:5) underlines the fact that he was a fully qualified missionary. No reason has been, or can be, given why a redactor should have created his racial origins, his place of birth and conversion, or his qualifications. The appearance of his name in the New Testament hapax form of Apollonius (corrected to the more normal New Testament form in the Alexandrian text) in precisely this context might suggest a source.

Nothing is known about Christianity in Alexandria at this period, but if the faith had spread out of Palestine to Antioch in the north, and to Damascus in the north-east, nothing militates against it having also penetrated the great port city of Egypt. Jewish connections between Alexandria and Jerusalem had always been close, and travel was facilitated by the great trade route, the Way of the Sea. Presumably merchants or returning pilgrims brought the faith to Alexandria, as they had done to Damascus.

Apollos is described as logios (Acts 18:24). The adjective has two connotations, 'eloquent' and 'learned, cultured', and it can mean specifically one or the other. In the present instance, however, no choice is necessary, for both are intended. Apollos spoke with inspirational enthusiasm (18:25), and was well-versed in the Scriptures (18:24). 1 Corinthians 1-4, where Paul has Apollos in view, confirms this interpretation, as Haenchen has very perceptively noted, 'Again and again Paul in these chapters comes back to two things which people missed in him but apparently detected in someone else, the gift of edifying speech, which was denied to Paul himself... and the gift of "wisdom".'97 It is difficult to imagine that an Alexandrian Jew with precisely these qualifications, and with a mind so open that he eventually accepted Jesus, could have escaped the influence of Philo, the great intellectual leader of Alexandrian Jewry, particularly since the latter seems to have been especially concerned with education and preaching. Philo's life-work was to give Hellenized Jews, such as Apollos, a perspective on the Law that would enable them to accept both it, and their ambient culture.

Acts gives the impression that Apollos arrived in Corinth before Paul returned to Ephesus towards the end of August ad 52 (Acts 19:1). In this scenario Apollos would have been in Ephesus for almost a year, which is reasonable given the limitations imposed by the seasonal restrictions on travel.

{page 276}

Regular sailings on the Ephesus-Corinth or the Troas-Neapolis routes came to an end in mid-September, and only in exceptional circumstances would ships have put to sea in October. The Corinthian merchants trading in Ephesus, who invited Apollos (the Western text of Acts 18:27a), would have wanted to return home for the winter. It is intriguing to think that the two figures who were to dominate the immediate future of the church at Corinth might have missed each other by a couple of days.

This scenario very easily integrates the Previous Letter (1 Cor. 5:9). It was provoked by news from Corinth, in response to which Paul told them 'not to associate with sexually immoral people' (1 Cor. 5:9). The simplest hypothesis regarding the bearers of the bad news is that they were the Corinthian merchants who returned to Ephesus at the beginning of the new trading season in the spring of ad 53, or Apollos, who could not accept the way in which he had been set against Paul. Evidently nothing was said about divisions within the community, because Paul would certainly have dealt with the issue, and in 1 Corinthians would have reminded the Corinthians that they had not heeded his stress on the importance of unity for the local church. Divisiveness must have become a problem at Corinth only after the dispatch of the Previous Letter.

If this is correct, there must have been two phases in Apollos' activity at Corinth. In the first, as Acts 18:28 says, he functioned as a missionary engaged in controversy with the Jews. When that proved unsuccessful, he turned his attention inward, and became as it were a theologian-in-residence of the Christian community.

Differences within the Community

Apollos quickly found a niche in the competitive world of the Corinthian church. Paul's preaching was anti-intellectual. He proclaimed a crucified Christ as the exemplar of authentic humanity (1 Cor. 2:1-5), and saw no need for any speculative development. He was more concerned with evidence of the power of transforming grace in his life and that of others (2 Cor. 3:2). He cut a poor figure by comparison with the orators who attracted followers by their eloquence. He also disappointed those believers who aspired to a real theology. Apollos met these needs. In addition to his oratorical gifts, he had the ability to connect things up, to establish relationships between different aspects of the faith. This was one of the fundamental aspects of rhetorical education. By using Philo's methods of interpretation, and his philosophical framework, Apollos provided intellectual fulfilment by building a rich synthesis of the elements which Paul had provided.

Human nature being what it is, the intellectual aspirations of those who clustered around Apollos certainly alienated others, perhaps the less well educated, who, in reaction, insisted on the importance of the bare minimum {page 277} inculcated by the founder of the church; what mattered most was love of neighbour.

An Apollos group and a Paul group were inevitable once the former appeared on the scene. But apparently there was also a third group claiming allegiance to Cephas (1 Cor. 1:12). Commentators debate whether Peter personally or merely his followers visited Corinth." The answer is irrelevant, because in either case these scholars assume that he represented a Judaizing faction within the church, which among other things pushed for observance of Jewish dietary laws. The most obvious candidates for membership in such a group are those Jewish converts who found difficulty in integrating into a predominantly Gentile community. The secular style of Apollos might have contributed to their sense of isolation. From this perspective, 'Cephas' functions as a symbol for a type of Jewish Christian, who, for Paul, is exemplified, not by the consistent James, but by Peter, who surrendered his freedom under pressure. Time had not healed the bitterness of the memory of the incident at Antioch (Gal. 2: n-14).

This conclusion is confirmed by the form of the slogans in 1 Corinthians 1:12. L. Welborn reflected a wide consensus in asserting, 'A declaration of allegiance to a party so personal in organization could take no other form than that which is given in 1 Corinthians 1:12-"I am of Paul!"'. Unfortunately he produced no parallels to the pattern of a personal pronoun followed by 'to be' (explicit or understood) followed by the genitive of a proper name. M. Mitchell's study revealed that this pattern is virtually unattested as implying political affiliation or relationship to a teacher, but is most commonly used of the parent-child relationship and the master-slave relationship. The force of the formula, therefore, is to suggest that those who think of themselves as belonging to factions within the church are acting childishly (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1-4) or slavishly (1 Cor. 7:23). If such was the way they naturally would have been understood by the Corinthians, the slogans cannot be self-designations. They are a deliberate put-down on the part of Paul, who uses the rhetorical device of impersonation to suggest a strongly condemnatory judgement.

The formation of these three groups104 was facilitated by the fact that the church at Corinth was too numerous to be accommodated comfortably in a single house. Of the 16 known individuals, two were married (Prisca and {page 278} Aquila), and one was single (Phoebe). One must presume that the remaining 13 were married. Two had been converted together with their households (Stephanas and Crispus). Hence, one should assume that there were at least 40 believers. There may have been many more. Even the house of a wealthy person, such as the villa at Anaploga, could not accommodate such a number in the triclinium. Instead of reclining in comfort, some were forced to sit in the portico of the atrium.

This disparity of treatment at the liturgical meal highlights another division, which has already been suggested by the allusion to a privileged elite (1 Cor. 1:26). Among the believers at Corinth there were 'haves' and 'have nots', and the former exhibited little or no concern for the latter (1 Cor. 11:22). Despite virtually unlimited opportunity, economic inequality was a fact of life, and the believers did nothing to close the gap.

How the resultant class struggle related to the three other groupings is not clear. Welborn oversimplifies in considering it to be the fundamental division, and mistakenly dismisses all other differences as irrelevant. It is tempting to identify the wealthy and better educated with the partisans of Apollos, and the lower class with those who preferred the elementary teaching of Paul. One must keep in mind, however, the complexity of the human situation. Many people of low social status have a desperate urge to become educated, and many educated people desire simplicity in religion.

Contacts With Corinth

When the sailing season opened in late April ad 54, a wealthy businesswoman of Ephesus, Chloe, sent some of her employees to Corinth, where shipments of new goods had arrived from the west. It may have been on their own initiative that they made contact with their fellow-Christians in the city, but it is most improbable that Paul would have failed to avail himself of the opportunity to obtain news of a church that he had not seen for three years. An important factor in his choice of Ephesus as his base had been the possibility of using precisely such travellers to carry his messages.

At this point in his career Paul had dealt with the teething and adolescent problems of a series of churches (Thessalonica, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, and Colossae). He had a very clear idea of the things that could go wrong, as a church struggled to define itself on the way to maturity. That he should have indicated to Chloe's people the areas of community life that might prove problematic is suggested not only by common sense, but by the fact that he does not know them individually. Evidently they were not important enough for him to retain their names, and there is a tendency to assume that members of the lower class need to have everything spelt out to them. Sexual morality was certainly one of the sectors they were asked to assess, because Paul must have been concerned about the impact of the Previous Letter.

The report brought back by Chloe's people stunned Paul. No doubt they stressed the bizarre-an incestuous marriage (1 Cor. 5:1-8), male homosexuals presiding at the liturgy (1 Cor. 11:2-16), drunkenness at the eucharist (1 Cor. 11:17-34)-but there were other observations, particularly regarding the factional divisions, which brought it home to Paul that the situation at Corinth was much more complex than anything he had dealt with hitherto.

His immediate response was to send Timothy to investigate. The excited gabble with which Chloe's people had poured out their experiences might have justified the hope that they were exaggerating. There was also the possibility that they might not have understood fully what was going on. After all, they were not experienced in church matters. It would have been unwise for Paul to react on the basis of what was essentially no more than gossip. Timothy, on the other hand, had already carried out a similar mission in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 3:1-6); he was not only trustworthy, but experienced. Fortunately, he had not yet left for Philippi (Phil. 2:19-24).

In view of the urgency of the matter, it is most improbable that Timothy took the land route to Corinth through northern Greece. This hypothesis is the abortive fruit of an attempt to harmonize what Paul says with Acts 19:22, which records a visit of Timothy and Erastus to Macedonia. This latter visit in fact took place, but after Timothy's return from Corinth. He replaced Paul on a planned visit to Macedonia (1 Cor. 16:5) when the Apostle had to make a hasty and unforeseen visit to Corinth.

In all probability, therefore, Timothy took passage on one of the many ships plying between Ephesus and Corinth. The duration of the voyage is uncertain. It depended on so many factors, notably, fine weather, fair winds, and good omens. On official business and using naval equipment, which meant no cargo delays, it took Cicero from 6 to 22 July 51 bc to sail from Athens to Ephesus. To allow Timothy two weeks in each direction is probably a minimum. He could hardly spend less than a fortnight in Corinth. Hence, we can safely {page 280}assume that he was away from Paul for six weeks, probably from the beginning of May to the middle of June.

During the early part of this period, a delegation, comprising Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:15- 17), arrived from Ephesus bearing a letter, in which the church of Corinth asked for Paul's opinion on a number of issues (1 Cor. 7:1). The presence of the delegation meant that all the information which Paul had expected to acquire through Timothy was now immediately available, and from a representative source. He had access to people who could speak authoritatively about the state of the community and its problems, and thus support or deny the gossip of Chloe's people. Paul, therefore, was in a position to formulate his response, not only to what the Corinthians saw as questions, but to aspects of their lives which he considered problematic. He did so in the letter we know as 1 Corinthians, which was written sometime before 2 June, the date of Pentecost (1 Cor. 16:8) in ad 54.

The Kaleidoscope Letter

The organization of 1 Corinthians reflects the complexity of the situation at Corinth. Paul deals with a wide variety of issues both directly and indirectly, and a number of commentators have considered the arrangement so haphazard that they refuse to see in it a single letter. In their eyes it is no better than a collection of fragments thrown together without plan or design. This, as we have seen, is certainly an exaggeration. Moreover, M. Mitchell has shown that 1 Corinthians is a consistent deliberative argument designed to show the Corinthians that the factionalism in which they indulged was not to their advantage; throughout Paul urges concord. Finally, a close analysis of 1 Corinthians reveals that Paul was chiefly concerned with the attitude and activity of one group at Corinth. The spirit-people were at the root of the problems dealt with in 13 of the 16 chapters of 1 Corinthians.

The Influence of Apollos

If we look closely at 1 Corinthians 1-4, where Paul is most explictly concerned with divisions in the community, a group emerges whose members believed that their possession of 'wisdom' made them 'perfect' (2:6). As possessors of 'the Spirit which is from God' (2:12), they were 'spirit-people' (2:15). They thought of themselves as 'filled (with divine blessings)', 'wealthy', 'kings', (4:8), 'wise', 'strong', 'honoured' (4:10). They looked down on others in the community who {page 281} had not attained their exalted spiritual status as 'children' capable of imbibing only 'milk' (3:1), and as 'fools' who were 'weak' and 'dishonoured' (4: 10).

While individual themes may be paralleled elsewhere in the Graeco-Roman world, R. A. Horsley has shown that there is a clear pattern within the wide selection of parallels provided by commentators. The language used by the group at Corinth reflects Philo's distinction between the heavenly man and the earthly man. All the key elements just mentioned appear in two passages of a single work by the Alexandrian philosopher, De Sobrietate, 9-11 and 55-7. Hence, we are entitled to assume that other elements integral to Philo's understanding of the heavenly and earthly man also formed part of the religious outlook of the spirit-people, and that Paul has these latter in mind when he argues against such points.

The body was a fundamental point of disagreement between the heavenly and the earthly man. The wisdom possessed by the former revealed to him that 'the body is evil by nature and treacherous to the soul' (Leg. All. 3.), whereas the earthly man was 'a body lover' (Leg. All. 3. 74). If the body is 'a plotter against the soul, a corpse and always a dead thing' (Leg. All. 3.), it is natural to infer that the spirit-people were those who denied the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12). Death, from their perspective, was liberation from the weight and defilement of the body (Som. 148). To recover the body after death would have been meaningless. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that the spirit-people could have accepted Paul's preaching of Jesus as the Risen Lord in the sense that he intended. Perhaps they thought of him as a purely spiritual 'Lord of Glory' (1 Cor. 2:8). In reality, they had no sense of Jesus; their attitude to him in effect said 'Anathema Jesus!' (1 Cor. 12:3). In keeping with their sapiential orientation they were theists, and, in every instance where Paul confronts them, he has to remind them of the importance of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 2:16; 3:23; 8:6; 10:16; 15:3-5).

When Philo's disparagement of the body is associated with his dictum that 'only the wise man is free' (Post. 138), which means that 'he has the power to do anything and to live as he wishes' (Prob. 59), we see the basis for the Corinthian slogans 'all things are lawful to me' (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23), and 'every sin which a man commits is outside the body' (1 Cor. 6:18). Their belief in the moral irrelevance of the body enabled the spirit-people to indulge their sexual appetites (1 Cor. 5:1-8; 6:12-20) and to eat what they wished (1 Cor. 8-10).

The importance that some Corinthians attached to glossolalia (1 Cor. 12-14) is drawn into this pattern, when it is recognized that, for Philo, possession of the prophetic spirit expressed itself in ecstasy, madness, and inspired frenzy, {page 282} since 'the mind is evicted at the arrival of the divine spirit' (Heres 264-5). When speaking of tongues Paul specifically mentions 'frenzy' (1 Cor. 14:23) and the inactivity of the mind (1 Cor. 14:14). Mysterious, unintelligible speech flattered the conviction of the spirit-people that they were superior.

Given that Jews were an alienated minority in the Corinthian church, the Diaspora synagogue is most unlikely to have been the source of Philonic influence at Corinth. The obvious channel by which Philo's philosophical framework entered the community was Apollos. What he said, however, and what his followers understood were not necessarily identical. If they mistook Paul's meaning so badly, it is improbable that they understood Apollos adequately. Certainly Paul's quarrel was with the practical implications of their interpretation of Apollos, rather than with the personality or teaching of the latter (1 Cor. 16:12). Indeed Apollos may have left Corinth, and come to live with Paul at Ephesus, because he had become dismayed at the uses to which his teaching was being put.

An Unfortunate Strategy

What he heard about the situation at Corinth strengthened Paul's bias against speculative theology. It had revealed itself in its fruits. Not only was it unnecessary, it was pernicious. Hence, instead of a sincere effort to get to the root of the problem, and to understand the legitimate aspirations of the spirit-people, Paul's reaction was brutally dismissive. Confident that such people would always be a minority without popular support, Paul chose to play on the dark side of the majority by turning the spirit-people into figures of fun. Cruel laughter was the weapon he selected.

Perhaps if left to himself Paul would not have made what would prove to be a disastrous mistake. The suggestion may have come from his co-author, Sosthenes (1 Cor. 1: i). Even in that case, we must ask what motivated Paul to accept such an unchristian tactic. Personal factors were probably decisive. The influence acquired by Apollos was an implicit criticism of Paul's leadership. He might content himself with simple proclamation to those incapable of receiving anything higher, but the spirit-people expected much more. A latent note of challenge is easily detected (1 Cor. 2:15; 4:3). If Paul did not offer them 'wisdom', might it not be that he was incapable of the soaring religious speculation that they considered integral to true religious authority? Might not the absence of such a gift indicate that he was not fitted to lead the community? Such presumption, from Paul's perspective, merited a sharp put-down, and he provided it in 1 Corinthians 1-4, which sets the tone for his relationship with the spirit-people. {page 283}

The difficulties in the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 are considered so severe that the passage has been dismissed as a post-Pauline interpolation. The mistake of such commentators is to take Paul seriously. In fact he is playing a cruel intellectual game with his opponents. His whole purpose is to mystify them and thereby reduce them to confused silence amid the laughter of all the others who hear the letter read aloud. This he achieves by appropriating some of the most cherished terms in the lexicon of the spirit- people and giving them a meaning radically opposed to that intended by the latter. He agrees that they are 'spiritual' and possess 'wisdom', but their spirit is 'the spirit of the world' (2:12) and their wisdom is 'the wisdom of this age' (2:6). He consents to their self-designation of'mature' only to redefine it as childishness (3:1). Those who set themselves up as judges are revealed to be incompetent (2:14). The unerring precision with which he goes to the heart of their beliefs is inexplicable without the assistance of Apollos, who was with him at the time of writing (1 Cor. 16:12). The piercing tone of mockery pricks the bubble of their complacency.

The savagely sarcastic rhetorical questions with which this initial section terminates (3:3-4) reappear in 4:7, 'Who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive?' The spirit-people have no qualities which would make them valuable as allies or supporters. They are recipients not creators. The contemptuous tone is heightened as Paul goes on to mock them by taking their spiritual language literally, thus transforming their legitimate religious aspirations into absurd social achievements. It takes little imagination to hear the rustle of laughter in the congregation and see the malicious sideward looks as the reader of the letter gave emphasis to the words, 'Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!' (4:8). This language has been interpreted as implying social status. The point is debatable, but it does seem rather probable that the spirit-people were drawn predominantly from the wealthier, and better educated section of the church at Corinth. It is they who would have had the leisure and ability to indulge in religious speculation.

Paul's lack of charity in his treatment of the spirit-people must have diminished him in the eyes of sensitive souls in the community, who felt that he had gone too far. Thereafter his judgement became suspect, and unconditional support problematic. For the spirit-people it went much deeper. Profoundly wounded by the humiliation of public ridicule, they were completely alienated and became his implacable enemies. Since they could not attack him directly, they channelled their pain and anger into frustrating his ambitions for the community. Not long after receipt of the letter at Corinth in the summer of ad 54, page 284} they gave hospitality to those whom Paul feared as the greatest threat to his ministry, the Judaizers from Antioch, who had troubled the churches in Galatia.

A Feast of New Insights

Despite his disparagement of the spirit-people, Paul knew that he had to deal with the issues they raised. He could not ignore their positions, while responding to those of others, without running the risk that his silence would be interpreted as approval. He thus found himself obliged to reflect formally on matters which previously had attracted his attention only fleetingly, or into which had he delved only superficially.

Paul probably undertook the task with some eagerness. Despite their faults, the Corinthians had accepted enthusiastically the challenge to translate the gospel into the realities of daily life. It was unfortunate that they made mistakes, but the fact that they at least made the effort put them far ahead of the Galatians, who were too timid even to try, and who sought the safety of authoritative rules and regulations. Whereas Paul ordered the Galatians to accept the burden of freedom, he entered into dialogue with the Corinthians.

The most noteworthy insights which were fostered by the confusion at Corinth concern the means of ministry, communal and personal freedom, the very nature of the Christian community, and the role of women in the church.

Transformed by Grace

His break with Antioch had forced Paul to reflect on the source of his authority as an apostle. If he had given further thought to the nature of ministry, it does not surface in any developed way in Philippians, Colossians, or Philemon. The opposition, which some at Corinth had set up between himself and Apollos, forced Paul to examine and evaluate the differences between them. Was it only a matter of style? Were there valid reasons why certain Corinthians opted for one or the other?

The basic insight is set out with exemplary simplicity: 'the kingdom of heaven does not consist in talk but in power' (1 Cor. 4:20). The church is not a set of ideas which informs the mind, but a context of divine power which transforms the personality. Authentic ministers, in consequence, do not use their rhetorical training to develop persuasive arguments, but manifest the presence of the grace-giving Spirit. Faith is not the conclusion of a logical discourse, but is born of a vision of God at work here and now (1 Cor. 2:1-5). Ministers assume the responsibility of being the place where the divine is active; their comportment must be such as to reveal the power of grace. They have to be able to say, 'Imitate me!' (1 Cor. 4:17; 11:1).

The need to define his relationship with Apollos prompts Paul to explain the description of a minister as 'God's co-worker', which he had used in a previous letter (1 Thess. 3:2). God does not need any assistance in granting grace. But he has chosen humans as instruments through which he works to generate and sustain faith (1 Cor. 3:5-9), and their mutual relationship is decided by his will. Totally dedicated co-operation, therefore, is essential, and inappropriate behaviour empties the cross of Christ of its power (1 Cor. 1:17). Inadequate ministers can block the passage of grace.

The importance of the witness value of the community in the proclamation of the gospel was apparent to Paul from his earliest letter (1 Thess. 1:6-8; 4:12; cf. Phil. 2:14-16). The disparagement of the body by the spirit-people at Corinth made it imperative for him to emphasize this insight, which permeates the whole of 1 Corinthians, even though it surfaces explicitly only occasionally (10:32; 14:23-5). It is why, after dealing with the divisions within the community (chs. 1-4), Paul develops a tightly knit tripartite section, whose basic theme is the importance of the body as the sphere in which commitment to Christ becomes real (chs. 5-6). The key section is the central one devoted to lawsuits (6:1-11). His point is not that the church should hide its dirty linen from the eyes of outsiders, but that they should grasp the opportunity to demonstrate the power of grace to non-believers by resolving such disputes themselves. Unless it is missionary, the church is untrue to itself. The world needs to see grace at work.

Personal and Communal Freedom

A feature of Paul's treatment of the incestuous marriage at Corinth is the stress he puts on his spiritual presence.

As for me, absent in body but present in spirit, as one who is present, I have already judged the man who has done such a thing in the name of the Lord Jesus. When you are assembled, I being with you in spirit, and empowered by the Lord Jesus, such a person should be handed over to Satan. (1 Cor. 5:3- 5)

When dealing with a similar need for excommunication some years earlier Paul had simply ordered the community to refrain from all contact with the offender (2 Thess. 3:14). In 1 Corinthians, on the contrary, we see a definite development in his sensitivity to the need of the local church for genuine autonomy if it is to develop normally. Those to whom all is dictated remain for ever immature. The lesson of Antioch had been thoroughly learned.

Here, therefore, Paul begins by asserting the responsibility of the community for its own authenticity (5:2). He thereby gives an unambiguous signal that he

{page 286} is not going to resolve the problem by fiat. It is the community which must decide. All he can do is to give himself a voice and vote in their council by claiming to be spiritually present. He spells out unequivocally what his position is, but does not pre-empt the decision of the church.

Precisely the same attitude emerges in his treatment of the eucharist (1 Cor. 11:17-34). After analysing the situation in the light of his understanding of the eucharist, he informs the Corinthians that, even though they say the words of institution, their lack of charity positively excludes their meal being the Lord's Supper (11:20). He does not tell them how to solve the problem. He simply lays out the need for self-examination on their part and specifies the criterion they must use, 'Anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgment on himself (11:29). Interpersonal relations within the community are the crucial factor.

What was valid for the community as a whole was also true for individual members. Paul refuses to command their moral behaviour. Thus, in the case of eating meat offered to idols, he makes clear his disagreement with the position taken by some Corinthians, but his only conclusion is to tell them what he personally would do in the same circumstances, 'Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall' (1 Cor. 8:13).

It is unfortunate that this awareness of what the believing community needs from its leaders did not extend to the legitimate desires of the spirit-people. If it had, the situation in Corinth would have developed very differently.

The Body of Christ

In discussing Paul's response to the Galatians we saw that he attained a vague perception of the organic unity of Christians and their relation to Christ. They had 'put on Christ' and were 'one person in Christ Jesus' (Gal. 3:27-8). Col. 1:18 and 2:19 show that Paul continued to ruminate on the vistas opened by this perspective. It was available, and proved its value, when the factionalism of Corinth forced him to develop a definition of the community which would make the very existence of hostile groups appear self-contradictory. The need to exploit practical applications provoked a deepening and clarification of the fundamental insight.

In the first part of the letter, Paul four times introduces the name 'Christ' in contexts in which it cannot be understood of the individual Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:13; 6:15; 8:12; 12:12). It can only be a designation of the community. But in what sense could the community be called 'Christ'?129 Common sense excluded a static identity of being; the individual Jesus Christ was a completely different reality. Only functionally could Christ and the community be considered one. Believers were the means by which the Risen Lord acted in the world. They were his ears, eyes, and hands. What he had done when physically present, they now do in his name and with his power. Thus to consider believers as agents of Christ, while true as far as it goes, does not exhaust the depth of Paul's meaning. The most fundamental activity of the church is an expression of its being.

'You are the Body of Christ and taken singly members of it' (1 Cor. 12:27). The rather awkward formulation can only mean that collectively the Corinthians are the 'Body of Christ', whereas individually they are its members. In many instances the interpretation of this key verse is vitiated by the adoption of the holistic definition of 'body', which was first proposed by J. Weiss in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:13 and then given the the status of common currency by R. Bultmann and J. A. T. Robinson, which prepared the way for the cosmic sacramental hypothesis of P. Benoit. R. H. Gundry, however, has shown that no text demands the holistic interpretation, and that all passages become more intelligible when 'body' is permitted to retain its connotation of physicality or corporeity, and he perfectly grasps Paul's meaning in writing that 'a distinction between two bodies of Christ has to be drawn-an individual body, distinct from the believers, in which he arose, ascended, and lives on high, and an ecclesiastical Body consisting of believers, in which he dwells on earth through his Spirit'. By calling the community the Body of Christ, therefore, Paul identifies it as the physical presence of Christ in the world. The mission of the church is a prolongation in time and space of the ministry of Christ by manifesting, as he did, the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24). Its role is to display God's intention for humanity and to enable those under the power of Sin to attain that ideal (Rom. 3:9).

How the church exercises this ministry becomes clear when we note that for Paul the functional role of the Body is rooted in its very nature. What he once said in Galatians, 'you are all one person in Christ' (3:28), is clarified by being reformulated as 'we who are many are one body' (1 Cor. 10:17), which is later repeated as 'so we, many as we are, are one body in Christ' (Rom. 12:5). With great insight Robinson has pointed out that in these texts 'the fact of unity, as {page 288} the basic datum, always stands for Paul in the main sentence; the multiplicity, on the other hand, is expressed by a subordinate phrase or clause with the sense of 'in spite of, and Robinson also draws the correct inference, 'the diversity is one that derives from the pre-existing nature of the unity as organic: it is not a diversity which has to discover or be made into a unity'.

The church differs from all other human groupings in so far as its unity is not functional but organic. Its members are not merely united by a common purpose, but share a common existence. An autonomous Christian is as impossible as an independent arm or leg. Arms and legs exist only as parts. If they are given the status of independent wholes by amputation they are no longer an arm or a leg. For a while they may look as if they were, but corruption has begun, and they can neither grasp nor walk. The same is true of believers. Their existence is loving-'without love I am nothing' (1 Cor. 13:2)-which necessarily implies a relationship to another person. To love and be loved is of the essence of Christianity and is constitutive of the being of the believer. They are bound together by what makes them be what they are. Only now does it become clear what Paul tentatively envisaged when he said, 'It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me' (Gal. 2:20). The independent self, which the world takes for granted as normal, is absorbed into the authenticity of an organic community.

Paul's insight into the nature of the church as an organic unity inevitably conditions his understanding of individuation. Individuation by independence, e.g. 'I think, therefore I am', would be categorically refused by Paul, because it would destroy the unity which makes believers what they are. As arms and legs relative to the physical body, the members of the Body of Christ are differentiated by their various capacities for service. Each has a different spiritual gift which is necessary for the common good of the community (1 Cor. 12:4-7). The authentically Christian use of the first-person singular must always be a variation of 'I exist to serve you'.

The most fundamental ministry of the church is to be the antithesis of a world which is characterized above all by divisions. Within the framework of hostile blocks (Gal. 3:28), individuals are separated from one another by barriers of fear and suspicion (1 Cor. 5:10-11; 6:9-10). The role of the church is to liberate the captives by revealing the opportunities of freedom in dependence on others.{page 289}

When viewed against this background, the factions at Corinth appear as an abberration as radical as the misplaced ambitions of the leaders of house-churches at Philippi (Phil. 4:2). The way in which he dealt with this latter problem shows that when Paul wrote that letter he did not yet have the conceptual tools which the Corinthian situation forced him to develop. He was aware that the rivalry was dangerous, but he did not then see it as contradictory of the very nature of the church.

Paul's vision of the church as an organic unity had far-reaching implications for his understanding of Christian morality. Thus he says to the litigants, 'To have lawsuits with yourselves is a total failure for you' (1 Cor. 6:7). For one Christian to sue another is equivalent to bringing a case against oneself, because they are both members of one body. Would it make sense for the arm to sue the leg? If the suit succeeded, would not both lose? In the same perspective, Paul will not accept that what is right in itself (e.g. the eating of meat offered to idols) is an adequate moral guideline for believers. The questions a believer must ask are: will the projected course of action empower or destroy others (1 Cor. 8:9; 11:29)? Will it build up the community (1 Cor. 14:3-5)?

The Ministry of Women

Despite the ambitions of Euodia and Syntyche which troubled the church at Philippi, Paul took it entirely for granted that women were ministers of the church in precisely the same sense as men. He recognized their gifts as fruits of the Spirit, which he had neither the desire nor the authority to oppose. Given the androcentric world in which he lived, however, it would be surprising if there were not stirrings of opposition among those who failed to appreciate just how radical the gospel was.

We would never know how Paul might have dealt with such criticisms, were it not for an episode which took place during the visit of Chloe's people to Corinth. They participated in one of the liturgical assemblies, and were shocked at the leading role taken by a man, who was apparently homosexual, and a very strange woman.

Presumably Paul had emphasized to the Corinthians the difference between the church and the world in terms similar to those he penned to the Galatians, 'There is no more Jew nor Greek, no more slave nor free, no more male and female' (Gal. 3:28). No doubt he exhorted the Corinthians to work out a lifestyle which would incarnate the newness of the gospel and make them stand out in their environment. In a gesture typical of their infantile mentality  {page 290} (1 Cor. 3:2; 14:20), the Corinthians decided to take the last phrase literally and set out to blur the distinction between the sexes! Unmasculine and unfeminine hairdos flew in the face of accepted convention, as did their approval of incest (1 Cor. 5:1-2).

In his reaction (1 Cor. 11:2-16) Paul develops three distinct arguments, but only the first is relevant here. Its kernel is drawn from Genesis 2:21-2, in which God is shown creating man and woman in different ways. From this Paul deduced that gender difference was part of God's plan for humanity, and so must be preserved as significant. Hence, a man should look like a man and a woman like a woman. For what this meant in practice, Paul, of course, was indebted to the fashions of his age. Men had short haircuts, and the long hair of women was plaited and wound round the top of the head to make a small hair cap.

Aware, however, that Genesis 2:21-2 was used in Jewish circles to demonstrate the inferiority and subordination of women, Paul immediately moved to ensure that nothing more than what he intended could be drawn from his premise. Corinthians 11:11-12 is the first and only explicit defence of the complete equality of women in the New Testament. Paul overturned the traditional argument from the chronological priority of the male in the creation narrative by pointing out that the chronological priority of woman in the birth of a male is just as much part of God's plan for the order of his creation (1 Cor. 11:12). This elementary argument functions as proof for the principle, 'As Christians, woman is not otherwise than man, and man is not otherwise than woman' (v. 11). Equality is the issue here, not complementarity. The strength and clarity of this insight means that the directive that women must keep silent in church (1 Cor. 14:34-5) cannot come from the pen of Paul.