Skip to content

The Two Gospels of Mark: Performance and Text

The Two Gospels of Mark: Performance and Text

Menu
  • Home
  • Inside the book
    • Abstract
    • Table of Contents
    • Sample page
    • Errata
  • Buy
  • Think-Blog
  • FAQ
  • Author
  • Contact
Menu

I doubt the existence of a church at Corinth

Posted on January 19, 2020December 21, 2022 by Danila Oder

I Corinthians and 1 Clement are epistles addressed to a church at Corinth. 1 Corinthians is ascribed to Paul and 1 Clement is ascribed to the leader of the Roman congregation. Both letters concern factions within a congregation (1 Cor 1.10-11 and 1 Clem 1.1).

It is odd that both Paul of Asia Minor, and the Roman congregation, claim pastoral authority over a church in Corinth. One would expect that a church in Corinth had one founder and one affiliation. And Corinth was sufficiently distant from both Ephesus and Rome that (if it existed) it had been essentially independent since its founding.

I propose instead that there was no orthodox congregation at Corinth. I suggest that the term “Corinth” was used as a metaphor for “mixtures”–in this case, mixtures of beliefs, or factions. The term “Corinth” or “Corinthian” indicated to the listener that the subject matter involved mixtures, or factionalism. A modern parallel would be a “Letter to the Marathoners” (Marathon, Greece), which an outsider would naturally suspect, from the title alone, counselled patience and endurance.

Corinthian bronze, a mixture

The term “Corinthian” could not help but remind the listener of the famous and precious Corinthian bronze, which was an alloy. Here’s Satyricon, Chapter 50:

[Trimalchio’s dinner party. The cook has just theatrically gutted a stuffed hog.] The whole household burst into unanimous applause at this; “Hurrah for Gaius,” they shouted. As for the cook, he was given a drink and a silver crown and a cup on a salver of Corinthian bronze.

Seeing that Agamemnon was eyeing the platter closely, Trimalchio remarked, “I’m the only one that can show the real Corinthian!” I thought that, in his usual purse-proud manner, he was going to boast that his bronzes were all imported from Corinth, but he did even better by saying, “Wouldn’t you like to know how it is that I’m the only one that can show the real Corinthian? Well, it’s because the bronze worker I patronize is named Corinthus, and what’s Corinthian unless it’s what a Corinthus makes?

And, so you won’t think I’m a blockhead, I’m going to show you that I’m well acquainted with how Corinthian first came into the world. When Troy was taken, Hannibal, who was a very foxy fellow and a great rascal into the bargain, piled all the gold and silver and bronze statues in one pile and set ’em afire, melting these different metals into one: then the metal workers took their pick and made bowls and dessert dishes and statuettes as well. That’s how Corinthian was born; neither one nor the other, but an amalgam of all.” (emphasis added)*

*Note: Given his track record as a blowhard, Trimalchio is undoubtedly wrong about the origin history of Corinthian bronze, but he is right that it is an alloy.

1 Clement

In the first sentence of 1 Clement the author draws attention to the name of the addressee! 1 Clement 1: “… we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition…that your venerable and illustrious name… has suffered grievous injury.” (emphasis added) This phrase, at the very beginning of the letter, is, I think, a hint to the reader to “pay attention to the name of the congregation.”

The metaphor of a stable mixture appears in 1 Clement 2 “Every kind of faction and schism was abominable in your sight.” The metaphor appears again in 1 Clement 37: “There is a kind of mixture in all things, and thence arises mutual advantage.”

I don’t know if the prologue to 1 Clement, which contains one of the two appearances of the word “Corinth,” is original. It doesn’t matter. At some point the word “Corinth” was included in the letter–I suggest, to spell out a meaning that was originally only implied.

1 Corinthians

In 1 Corinthians, the only mention of “Corinth” is in the introduction, in 1.1.2, a location highly susceptible to editorial “clarification.” Following the extended salutation, at 1:10 the subject of the letter is stated, “Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you but that you be knit together in the same mind and the same purpose.” (NRSV). The subject, as in 1 Clement, is factionalism, i.e., incompatible mixtures.

Can we really believe that both the Roman church and an Asian cleric are writing to the same congregation, claiming authority to advise them? That is just not possible. These two strands of Christianity have different origins.

What then is the origin of 1 Corinthians? “Paul” wrote it to a congregation he pastored. Someone saved it and used it (Marcion?). At some point, before the canonization of the letter by the orthodox, the concept of “Corinthian” was spelled out literally by locating the recipients in Corinth. That’s all I can say.

Conclusion

1 Clement and 1 Corinthians are not historical evidence for an orthodox church in Corinth. There is no evidence that indicates its existence. Personally, I think that the text of 1 Clement is early, i.e., prior to the Jewish War. And it was written in Rome, to which the early church ascribed it. But I suspect it was written to a satellite congregation in the orbit of the Roman church, nearby, perhaps Ostia or the Naples area. It was known as the Corinthian letter, i.e., on the subject of mixtures. Only later was a physical location in Corinth, and an implicit date added to it (the name “Clement), a date associated with the glory days of Flavian patronage (by Clemens/Flavia Domitilla).

expanded May 10, 2021, December 11, 2021, December 21, 2022

Share
Tweet

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • How did Flavia Domitilla become a patron of the Roman congregation?
  • A Note on Costumes in the Gospel of Mark
  • The Gethsemane Scene in Mark
  • Review of Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist?
  • “Jericho” in the Gospel of Mark: A new explanation

Subscribe to this blog


 

URL for RSS

RSS Feed

Categories

  • Acts of the Apostles
  • Ancient history
  • Book reviews
  • Flavia and Clemens
  • General information
  • Gospel of Luke
  • Gospel of Mark
  • Gospel of Matthew
  • Jesus movement/early Christianity
  • Mark
  • Mark's congregation
  • Paul
  • Performance of the play
  • The book
  • The world of antiquity
  • Uncategorized

Archives

  • December 2022
  • September 2022
  • July 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019

Recommended links

  • The blog Vridar
  • Michael Turton's Historical Commentary on GMark
  • Early Christian Writings, a resource
  • Russell Gmirkin, writer and editor
  • Nailed, a popular introduction to Jesus mythicism
  • Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities
  • Robert M. Price's site
  • Earl Doherty's Jesus Puzzle site
  • Dissect Designs, my cover designer
  • Far Stones, an excellent historical novel I proofread
© 2023 The Two Gospels of Mark: Performance and Text | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme