New Testament scholarship has long sought to recount the religious situation in Corinth as addressed by the Apostle Paul in his letters to the Corinthians. The most tantalizing question is whether or not the Corinthians were Gnostics, proto-gnostics, or something related to Jewish Hellenism. It is now certain that the Corinthians definitely were not Gnostics like Valentinus, Basilides, or Marcion of the second and third centuries. However, many scholars are still maintaining that the Corinthians were proto-gnostics or the forerunners of Gnosticism; possibly influenced by the Jewish Hellenistic school located in Alexandria. This paper shall attempt to show the true nature behind the uses of sophia (wisdom) and gnosis (knowledge) in the Pauline corpus as innocent references to secular wisdom in general; not just an exclusive avenue of Hellenistic thought. Furthermore, we shall investigate the extent of Jewish influences, namely that of Philo and the possible link with Apollos of Alexandria. It is hoped that through a historical, geographical, and exegetical approach; a more clear understanding of the Corinthian religious situation, as a random phenomenon of Roman environmental circumstances, can be established.

I The Spiritual Search of the Pagan World

The world of Paul and the Corinthians was a period of spiritual, political, and
cultural fluctuation. Ideas were moving freely across the Empire thanks to a Roman policy of tolerance. This process set the stage for Christianity as eloquently stated by Starr:

A major element in the spread of Christianity was the fact that the pagan world
was already moving, though blindly, in the direction that Christian thought
was to take more consciously. Neither a Roman poet like Virgil nor a
Greek philosopher like Epictetus would have understood the statement that
he was a forerunner of Christianity, yet it is true that many thinkers and
artists of the Empire reflect the contemporary spiritual uneasiness and
the search for meaning in a vast, materialistic world.1

Starr’s comments are not only an accurate assessment, but they also hint as to what was going on at Corinth. The Corinthians were experiencing new ideas (Christianity being the primary item), but the residue of old ideas may have not been entirely effaced from the Corinthian minds. We shall come back to this very important point later on in our investigation.

As we have just seen, the whole drive of imperial culture was in the direction of new concepts 2 of man and of the divine.3 Roman hegemony tended to alienate the people across the Empire; causing them to seek after things pertaining to identity, purpose, and security. Roman authority, being supreme and supra-national, meant exile in one’s own country; therefore, religion and philosophy became outlets for unsatisfied faith and lost pride–otherwise filled by the love of one’s nation. Quite simply, the Roman age was a time not only of uncontrolled blood lust, but of pessimism and nerve failure regarding the powers of man to work out his own future.4 This was a world dominated by Fortune, Fate, and daemons.5 It is no wonder that the Corinthians were looking for something substantive (gnosis) here and now, rather than waiting for the return of Christ or undergoing a process of sanctification. Salvivic knowledge of any kind was desperately sought.

Where did one find such knowledge? The choices were limitless and all vying for the attention of anyone interested. During this time, we find a significant respect for oracles, miracle-workers, and a host of emotional, personal mystery faiths.6 From Egypt came the Hellenized cult of Isis the mother of all, from Persia came Mithras with its Babylonian astrology, Cybele (the Great Mother) was worshipped since 204 B.C., and of course Rome introduced emperor worship to accompany the old pantheon of gods of Classical Greece.7

Religion was not the only way to fill the spiritual void. Philosophy was yet another option available to the first century seeker of truth and knowledge. It offered more immediate results than a promise of the after-life. Some philosophic schools were interested in a way of living more than salvation. Epicureans and Stoics were examples of this. They offered a code of conduct rather than a faith. Epicureans preached contentment through a pursuit of non-excessive pleasures. Stoics emphasized the acceptance of being only an insignificant part of the cosmos where all one must do is simply fulfill the role nature has assigned. Seneca sums it up nicely:

Our motto, as everyone knows, is to live in conformity with nature: it is
quite contrary to nature to torture one’s body, to reject simple standards
of cleanliness and make a point of being dirty, to adopt a diet that is not
just plain but hideous and revolting… Philosophy calls for simple living, not
for doing penance, and the simple way of life need not be a crude one.8

Seneca’s call for a simple and realistic life is a practical approach in an age of anxiety filled with so many pathways to heaven. Seneca’s dry remark on penance is just one example felt by many that religion can be a torture which thwarts happiness in the present world. The mentality is: “why must we wait for heaven to come down to us, or us to ascend to heaven, when we can live out our salvation now?” No doubt Paul deals with a similar mentality in Corinth.
The brief sketch of the Roman world is necessary for our argument because it explains to us that nature of the surroundings Paul had to work within. But what about Corinth itself? Raymond Brown, in his commentary, reminds us that the Corinth Paul visited was not continuous with the ancient city that was destroyed by the Roman consul, Lucius Mummius in 146 B.C.9 Julius Caesar began its restoration in 44 B.C., enticing Jews, Greeks, Romans, and Orientals to gravitate to the city because it was a mighty commercial sea port ranking with Alexandria, Ephesus, and Rome itself as one of the most important cities in the Empire.10 Corinth was thus a melting pot of cultures that mixed their ideas as well as their commerce.

It is highly probable that Gnostic ideas from Alexandria made their way across the Mediterranean to Corinth as a by-product of commercial trade, but does Paul necessarily deal with it in his letters to the Corinthians? Rudolph Bultmann thought Gnosticism crept into Corinth via Alexandria and its Hellenistic Jewish contingency through a syncretistic process, as did Schmithals and Wilckens who found a Gnostic Christology among the opponents of Paul in 1 Corinthians.11 Brown, however, correctly states that gnosticizing tendencies are not sufficient to substantiate a developed system or theology–furthermore, Corinth as a melting pot, would never have been an ideal place for one to develop.12 Of course, we still have to deal with the lingering scholarly consensus that they were proto-gnostics influenced by Alexandrian Jewish Hellenism, but we must first turn our attention to Paul before we can.

Now that we have discounted the possibility of an organized Gnostic “system” at Corinth, let us recount Paul and his visit to the city. We know from the Acts of the Apostles that Paul came to Corinth after his missionary venture in Athens (18:1 NKJV). He met Aquila and Priscilla, Jews who had recently arrived in Corinth because of the expulsion from Rome ordered by Claudius (18:2). Acts also tells us that Paul was in Corinth during the proconsulship of Gallio (18:12). Hans Conzelmann dates Gallio’s proconsulship between 51 A.D. to as late as 53 A.D.13 Paul, therefore, remained in Corinth sometime during these years–a lengthy enough time for the Corinthians to fully understand his teachings. Paul stayed on this long as the founder of a new church, probably organizing leaders and teaching them so that they could continue on without him for it is likely he knew he would be moving on. Paul’s lengthy stay is important because, even in spite of it, the Corinthians deviate from his teachings soon after he leaves. Many scholars believe that Jewish Hellenism from Alexandria moved into the Corinthian church at this time; possibly derived from the Jewish writer Philo.

In Alexandria arose the greatest Jewish scholar of the Diaspora, Philo (c. 30 B.C.–45 A.D.), who essayed to reconcile Plato and the Bible, while giving priority in invention to Moses, and developed an allegorical method of interpreting the Old Testament for that purpose.14 In Philo’s writings, he shows a profound personal intimacy with the heavenly Sophia (feminine personification of wisdom).15 Lady Wisdom or Sophia is the central character of Hellenistic Jewish wisdom literature. She has been a literary figure used even in the Bible.16 Richard Horsley maintains that it is this view that the Corinthians have in mind with their usage of sophia in 1 Corinthians 1-4.17 Of course we have to remember that it is Paul who writes the term, and not the Corinthians; therefore, we must understand his usage of it. But for Philo, Sophia was the giver of wisdom and knowledge (gnosis), usually “knowledge of God” or “knowledge of truth.”18 Gnosis thus becomes the religious theological content of sophia; an expression or one manifestation of it.19 The recipients thereby have a special religious status, as “wise” or “righteous” or “perfect.”20 Since it is through Paul’s context we must proceed, let us look briefly at the literary characteristics of 1 Corinthians. By analyzing the structure of 1 Corinthians, we can better understand who and what Paul is addressing, and whether or not Jewish Hellenism is the culprit of the ideas he is attacking.

II Literary Form, Terminology, and the Role of Apollos in 1 Corinthians

Adolf Deissmann defined the epistle as an “artistic letter” or a piece of literature, while a letter would be more of an “experience” and “artless.”21 Doty adds to this the Artemonian definition of epistles as “half of a dialogue” or a “dialogue halved.”22 1 Corinthians is most definitely a dialogue halved since Paul directly addresses the Corinthians (as like in a discussion) in (2:3)–”I was with you in weakness…” Paul also asks direct conversational questions: “Where is the wise?” (1:20), “For who makes you differ from another?” (4:7). Paul asks these questions as if it were his own fault that the Corinthians had gone astray. One must remember Paul spent the greater part of two years teaching the Corinthians; it is highly possible that he felt they misunderstood him, and wanted to be aware of any others who might have confused them.

This last point brings us to the fact that in 1 Corinthians, Paul makes us aware of four factions (1:11-12)23 in the Corinthian church–which should not surprise us since Corinth was a major commercial sea port where cultures and ideas mixed and often clashed together. This is very important because it is these four factions that Paul is addressing throughout the letter. It stands to reason that they disagreed on their theology, therefore, Paul’s use of sophia and gnosis are general terms that are both applicable and interchangeable for all of the factions.24

Upon this last conclusion, let us look at some examples of how Paul uses sophia and gnosis in chapters 1-4 of 1 Corinthians. Paul says in (1:5), “…that you were enriched in every thing by Him in all utterance and knowledge (gnosis)… This statement comes from the thanksgiving section of the epistle where Paul thanks God for the revelational gnosis He has imparted upon the Corinthian church. Gnosis in this sense is positive as “knowledge of God.” It is significant to notice that Paul is crediting the Corinthians with some religious knowledge, but he still labels them “carnal” (3:3) which forces him to still give them spiritual “milk” rather than “solid food” (3:2). It is because of the existence of divisions (factions) that they are carnal–”behaving like mere men” (3:3).

Now Paul shifts gears in chapter 8 when he begins a discussion on things sacrificed to idols. He makes the statement: “We know that we all have gnosis” (8:1). Paul hear is commenting on how every Christian knows that “an idol is nothing in the world,” and “there is no other God but one” (8:4)25. These are no doubt slogans of some kind, possibly (but not necessarily) used by the Corinthians. Horsely contends that the slogan “there is no other God but one” is a basic Jewish confession that “God is one” found in Josephus, Pseudo-Sophocles, and of course Philo as a lesson that Moses continually teaches in the Laws.26 Our other slogan: “an idol is nothing in the world,” is also found in Philo’s writings and Hellenistic Judaism as a critique of false gods.27 Horsely is probably correct on these points, but is it the Corinthians who are saying these things or Paul? Paul seems, on the surface, to explain these slogans in (8:5-6). But why would he need to explain them if the Corinthians use the slogans themselves? Is Paul giving a more correct definition? It seems Paul is not giving a better definition, but introducing the idea or better yet; at least reminding the Corinthians. He is reminding them why idols have no value and also reminding them that others have not this gnosis (8:7).

If the Corinthians were parading these slogans around, Paul would not have needed to define their meaning; therefore, it is Paul introducing Hellenistic Jewish terminology (probably as a corrective reminder) and not the Corinthians in this instance. It is likely Paul taught these slogans to the Corinthians (he includes himself when he says “we know”), but they went overboard in using them. However, Paul is not using these slogans as a Hellenistic Jew in line with Philo, but just borrowing them for sake of convenience because many probably heard them before. Jews would not be the only ones to appreciate these slogans, but also pagans because they did not worship idols either. We also must remember that many who adhered to Platonic philosophy also knew God was one. Celsus reminds us that Heraclitus said: “those who worship images as gods are as foolish as men who talk to the walls.”28 Paul, then, is just bridging cultural boundaries here.

We have so far looked at a couple of examples of how Paul uses the term gnosis along with some slogans, but we must also observe how he uses sophia, since he uses it quite frequently in the first four chapters. Paul asks, “Has not God made foolish the sophia of this world?” (1:19). This is a general use of sophia entailing all versions of wisdom. Paul is saying that the world has never understood God through its wisdom (1:21). Paul then speaks of the sophia of God (2:7) as hidden in a mystery ordained through all the ages. We can describe this as apocalyptic–both esoteric and eschatological since it transcends time; pertaining to the future as it has all through the past. But are these usage’s gnostic or Hellenic? They are neither because Paul’s sophia is general in one sense (as opposed to the personified Sophia of Jewish Hellenism), and incomprehensible unless revealed by the Spirit of God (2:10) which might seem gnostic at first glance but is not because Paul’s sophia of God is not salvivic. For Paul, having the mind of Christ is not salvation, but being known by God is–which is also proof that one loves Him (8:3).

Now that we have discussed some examples of how Paul uses sophia and gnosis, we must also discuss why he is on the subject. Someone had to teach the Corinthians these things. We have already seen how Paul possibly taught the Corinthians some Jewish slogans they were using, and how he includes himself with them as having used them. When he says “we all have gnosis” he again includes himself, which hints that he is recounting past lessons he, himself, taught them. But we also know that Paul did not work alone in Corinth. Another teacher, Apollos, was present in Corinth who was both able and eloquent. Acts tells us (18:24-28) that Apollos was a Jew from Alexandria, mighty in the scriptures, being fervent in the Spirit taught accurately though he knew only the baptism of John, and was discovered speaking boldly against the Jews in Ephesus by Priscilla and Aquila–who taught him more accurately.29 Priscilla and Aquila probably recruited Apollos to come to Corinth and help Paul with the new church there. Is Apollos the source of Alexandrian (Philonic) Jewish Hellenism? Is Paul thus reacting against something Apollos brought in? Obviously Apollos was influential since a faction developed bearing his name against Paul. What then is the relationship between Paul and Apollos?

Richard Horsley believes that the Corinthians almost certainly, through the ministry of the Alexandrian Jew Apollos, got caught up in an enthusiastic devotion to Sophia along the same lines as expressed in Sap. Sal. and Philo.30 The problem in this interpretation is Paul’s treatment of Apollos in the Biblical text. Paul describes his relationship with Apollos in positive terms as an equal co-worker who watered where he had planted (3:6). Again, Paul describes himself and Apollos as “fellow-workers” (3:9), while also reiterating that the “one who plants and the one who waters are one” (3:8). From these statements, it is quite clear that Paul is no where at odds with anything Apollos has said or done. He, in fact, considers Apollos’ ministry as a beneficial compliment to his own. Apollos, therefore, is not the source of Alexandrian Hellenism according to what we see in Paul.

However, one might say that Paul is only being diplomatic; trying not to aggravate an already delicate situation. Paul may have been trying to avoid a fight with those who followed Apollos since his authority was already hanging in the balance. But of course, if Paul once took Peter on without hesitation, it is more than likely he did not fear Apollos since he still had followers to back him up anyway. It stands then that Paul is not even concerned with Apollos as a potential threat. If anything, Apollos was the one left in charge of the church when Paul left in the first place. This might explain why Priscilla and Aquila brought him back to Corinth–as an able leader to succeed Paul.

What we must conclude then is that Horsley is guilty of trying to “get behind” the Apostle Paul to the “real” historical situation of Corinth. He forgets, however, that it is by Paul that we even know anything at all about the Corinthian church. Since it is Paul who is relaying the information, we have to stay within Paul’s context. Anything outside of these parameters is pure speculation and futile. In short, since Paul considered his ministry complimentary with Apollos’, we have to accept Paul’s view; furthermore, if Apollos brought in Philonic ideas, Paul would then have been an accomplice. This is very unlikely for why would Paul have a problem with something he taught himself? Finally, if Apollos is the only link to Alexandria and Philo we have, and it has been sufficiently proven that his ministry was in conjunction with Paul’s theology (which does not agree with Philo’s); Philonic Jewish Hellenism must not have been what Paul was arguing against. Outside of where they were born, there is no link between Philo and Apollos.

III The Structure and Nature of Gnosis in Gnosticism

Now that it has been sufficiently proven that Jewish Hellenism is not the source of the Corinthian conflict, we must now consider the final possibility of proto-gnosticism. We have already established quite easily that there was no Gnostic “system” in Corinth like those of the second and third centuries (the cultural plurality and the evidence of factions is full proof against such a possibility). Hans Conzelmann, in his commentary, however calls the Corinthians proto-gnostics.31 This means that they were the early primitive forerunners of the fully developed systems found in the Gnostic schools of Alexandria; which the heresiologists railed against as the most hated enemy of “orthodox” Christianity. In lieu of our conclusion that the Alexandrian Apollos was not the source of Alexandrian Hellenism, we must question any Corinthian connection to the evolution of Christian Gnosticism. In fact, we must question whether the Corinthians exhibited any semblance of gnosticizing at all. We may clarify this with a better understanding of what being a gnostic is.

Gnosis, as defined by Kurt Rudolph, has its constituent elements; usually adaptations from existing traditions transformed into a completely new character and a new significance.32 It is rooted in ancient mythology and current religion–a syncretism.33 Thereby the possessor of gnosis, or gnostic, is literally a “knower.”34 One key feature of gnosis is the concept of the “divine spark” (pneuma or “spirit”) within man that must be reawakened and restored to its origin in the divine world.35 This entails the redemption of the gnostic–his or her reconciliation with the true God of the universe. This leads to a dualism (similar but not exactly to that of Plato) between “light” and “darkness,” “body” and “matter,” and the world with its rulers who hold it in slavery (its inhabitants are prisoners) against the true God of virtue who is above all other gods.36

Gnosis is usually gained only by divine revelation to one considered “elect” or worthy. Gerard Luttikhuizen explains the main characteristic of gnostic revelation is the initial perplexity and ignorance of the recipient prior to the appearance of the heavenly revealer as seen in the Gnostic dialogues: The Sophia of Jesus Christ, The Apocryphon of John, The Letter of Peter to Philip, and The Gospel of Mary.37 The gnostic thus becomes a spiritual “elite” over the rest of humanity living in the darkness of the world. However, it is never seen that a gnostic claims any right to rule over the rest of humanity. The goal is escape from the world of the Demiurge; not to rule within it.  From these definitions of what being a gnostic is, do the Corinthians fit these examples?  It seems that the Corinthians aligned themselves into factions based on personalities (Apollos, Paul, Cephas, and Christ). They would say, “I am of Apollos” or “I am of Paul” (1:12). The Corinthians, then, are saying that they have received their spiritual knowledge from men. Gnostic revelation is never from men, but from a heavenly messenger (whether angelic, from Sophia, or God) who is not in the flesh. Not even those who aligned themselves with Christ could have been gnostics since the typical Gnostic revelation emphasizes the ineffectiveness of Christ to communicate to humans as a man on earth.38 In fact, the true gnostic would try to avoid the earthly ministry of Jesus as much as possible. Therefore, the Christ faction in Corinth was probably a group who felt they were the traditionalists following Christ’s example more accurately than receiving it second-hand from Apollos, Cephas, or Paul.

The Corinthians did view themselves as spiritual elites full of mature spiritual wisdom. The proof of their maturity was their charismatic utterances through spiritual gifts. It was these spiritual gifts that the Corinthians were ranking themselves to the consternation of Paul who informs them that the “one and same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills” (12:11). Also, because of their spiritual maturity, they set themselves up as kings both full and rich (4:8). True gnostics would not want to reign in the flesh. The earth, to a gnostic, is a lower world or “aeon.” Gnostics want to ascend to the higher aeons to get closer to the true God of the universe and out of the reach of the Demiurge and his lower aeons. The Corinthians are thus living something totally different from that of the life of a gnostic. This leaves us the conclusion that the Corinthians were not proto-gnostics in any form whatsoever since they do not display any of the signs of gnosticism.

IV The Corinthians as Products of the Pagan Spiritual Search

By now it has become quite clear that the religious situation in Corinth had nothing to do with Jewish Hellenism or gnostic influences. How then can we describe the situation? Since the Corinthians were “ruling” as Paul claims, it is highly possible that they were living as if God’s kingdom had descended to earth. Anthony Thiselton calls this “realized eschatology.”39 In the words of C.K. Barrett, “the Corinthians were behaving as if the age to come were already consummated.”40Thiselton adds to this with his conclusion that “an over-realized eschatology leads to an enthusiastic view of the Spirit.”41 If the Corinthians were living out their salvation, it is no stretch to see the need for an active Holy Spirit in direct communion with the community of believers.

Of course one must immediately ask what did the Corinthians think about the resurrection? Paul echoes a slogan: “Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them” (6:12). Obviously this was being said in the congregation. It is a blatant denial of the resurrection which Paul counters in verse 13. Here is where injecting gnostic influences becomes the most tempting. But we know that for gnostics, salvation does not lie in the temporal world. Thiselton, however, argues that the Corinthians reinterpreted the resurrection to mean their rebirth as Christians because nowhere does it say that they believed they were already resurrected and would never die.42 However, this is incorrect in light of the above mentioned slogan. Why would the Corinthians believe they were reborn (being still in flesh) and their bodies doomed for destruction by God? Would God initiate a rebirth only to destroy it later? It is far more reasonable to think that the Corinthians never factored in the body at all–thus denying a resurrection all together. There is a something at work here, but it is not gnostic–it is Platonic and traditional. In fact, the Corinthians might have been attempting to mix Platonic elements with traditional Greek religion. Here is where old ideas may have resurfaced in the Corinthian minds that Paul and Apollos failed to efface.

In our section of the pagan spiritual search, we found that most wanted a quick salvation in the present. This is what made philosophy and the mystery religions so appealing. The slogan about foods and the stomach sounds very much like a Stoic slogan. Marcus Aurelius says something similar:

In the life of a man, his time is but a moment, his being an incessant flux,
his senses a dim rushlight, his body a prey of worms, his soul an unquiet eddy,
his forces dark, and his fame doubtful. In short, all that is of the body is as
coursing waters, all that is of the soul as dreams and vapors; life a warfare, a
brief sojourning in an alien land; and after repute, oblivion.43

Marcus Aurelius’ eloquent comments portray the dominant theme of the Roman world–we live and then we die. No doubt, the Corinthians felt as he did, and this became their motivation to rule as kings because they denied a resurrection of the body. But this is not to say that the Corinthians were non-religious; their practice of spiritual gifts is testament to a very strong sense of religiosity, however, with a philosophic flavor.

Even in the days of Plato, or better yet Homer; Greek notions of the after life was not a promising hope for most except the glorious heroes like Achilles, Odysseus, Hector, and Heracles whose soul or “shade” would spend eternity in the Elysian Fields. For the average person, however, an inglorious eternity was to be spent in the underworld roaming aimlessly without true form–somewhat like a forgotten echo. Life on the surface, however, was where most could gain everlasting immortality through fame. The after-life, though, was an after-thought.

Religion thus served its purpose for the living as a celebration of life itself. It was as much a civic institution as government. It is highly possible that the Corinthians created for themselves a theocracy (an exstention of the Messianic Kingdom) where they ruled by the oracles of the Holy Spirit. It has already been established that the pagan spiritual search involved the love of oracles and miracle-workers. These were not just the proofs of their salvation; the manifestations of the Holy Spirit and their religious freedom became their salvation. But the Corinthians needed a paradigm to organize their community. Perhaps Plato’s Republic was the model of their theocracy, a point worth investigating.

Since we know that Paul was concerned with neither gnostic knowledge or Philonic wisdom, it stands that Greek wisdom in general is what he meant, for he says “Jews seek a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom” (1:22). Plato, no doubt, was the most popular of the Greek philosophers and the most associated with Greek wisdom. Even Philo in Alexandria was affected by him over three hundred years after his death. The Corinthians, being closer to Plato’s Athens, would have been influenced all the more. Let us, therefore, investigate Plato’s analogy of the Divided Line as a clue to the Corinthians’ obsession with knowledge.

The Divided Line analogy expresses a boundary relationship between Plato’s two realities–the intelligible realm and the physical realm.44 As, by now, one can guess for Plato; the intelligible realm is superior to the physical realm. The two realities are divided into four mental states beginning with two states in the intelligible realm and gradually descending (decaying) into the final two states of the physical realm. State A is Intelligence (noesis); full vision culminating in truth.45 State B is Reason; the procedure of mathematical reasoning (dianoia), purely deductive and uncritical of its assumptions.46 This is the lowest limit of the intelligible realm. State C is Belief (pistis or faith); commonsense beliefs in morals as a practical guide to life, but not well thought out.47 Finally we are left with state D which is Illusion (eikasia); second hand impressions and opinions of which the minds of ordinary people are full.48

Plato’s analogy sets up his conclusion that only the best (who understand the intelligible) are capable of ruling (i.e. the famous Philosopher King). Every person, according to Plato, must know their place and not deceive others with pretenses of greater ability. The Corinthians’ obsession with knowledge and spiritual maturity are no less statements of knowing the intelligible in line with Platonic thought. From this it becomes easier to understand why they began to value certain spiritual gifts over others as proof of their intellectual status and as markers of rank. It also might explain why they were dividing into factions: 1) each group claimed a monopoly on the intelligible truth, and 2) they wished to align themselves with the true philosopher king whether it be Paul, Apollos, Cephas, or Christ. This, of course, forces Paul to call himself a fool for Christ because he believes or rather has faith (pistis) in the foolishness of God (1:25). Paul is thus reversing the Platonic order by valuing something based on faith. Paul is also content to leave the wisdom of God as a mystery revealed through the Spirit (not mathematical reasoning)(2:10). This is Paul’s most powerful theological statement in the whole epistle–God can work salvation through foolish and weak things which the crucifixion is the epitome.

Is there any credibility to this theory? Plato’s analogy of the Divided Line is an ancient attempt at perception theory.

Paul has a perceptional response in 1 Corinthians 13:8-10:
Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether
there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will pass
away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which
is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

Paul is thus saying that it is impossible for human beings to gain access to full knowledge until Christ returns. Paul also says, “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known” (13:12). Finally Paul concludes with, “And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (13:13). This is the “more excellent way” Paul wishes to impart on the Corinthians. It thus can be seen that Paul supersedes Intelligence and Reason with what would be considered to Greek Philosophy, as the most irrational and erratic force in the universe–love with its derivatives faith and hope.

Is Paul making an antithetical argument against Plato? Plato would argue that knowledge is found in the Forms–Ideas expressed in geometric patterns that define the cosmos and are independent of our minds, and are more sure than the senses which can never be trusted because they only impart “reflections” of the true Forms.49 Paul admits that we see only reflections of the truth in dark mirrors, but Paul emphatically argues that it is not reasonable to discard with the physical senses that produce faith, hope, and love. Paul has to argue this because it was out of Christ’s love that he allowed Himself to be crucified so that we might attain salvation and the fullness (pleroma) of God. This would entail the future obtainment of all knowledge through the mind of Christ (which Paul says we have only in part now). Paul, therefore, does seem to be arguing against a version of Platonic philosophy. Also, we can realistically infer that the Corinthians are attempting to establish a Republic along Platonic lines for the organization of the community. The factions, therefore, are representative of their search for a philosopher king to rule over them.

Now that we have investigated the possibility of Platonic influences in the Corinthian community, we must also recognize the presence of charismatic utterances and other spiritual gifts as signs of religious practice. This means that Corinthians were not exclusively utilizing philosophy as the basis of their way of life. They seem to be balancing their philosophic tendencies with a very vigorous “enthusiastic” use of the Spirit. As we have noted earlier, this enthusiasm is the by-product of an over-realized eschatology of the Corinthian church. The question remains, and it is our final question to consider, what is the source of their religious practice?

Just as we have seen how traditional philosophic ideas crept into the Corinthian church as an explanation for their concerns with knowledge and wisdom; we find that tradition Greek religion is present as well. The charismatic utterances employed by the Corinthians through the Holy Spirit became a Christian adaptation to oracular divination as found in such sacred places as Delphi and Eleusis. Having oracles was the nearest link to the divine realm where the pious might get one step ahead of Fate which, as we noted earlier, was very much a major concern for the ordinary person of the first century.

Adding to the need for oracles, the Corinthians display something not unlike the Greek mystery cult of Dionysus (Bacchus) the god of wine and orgasmic frenzy–the effects of wine. Somehow the Corinthians have associated Christ with Dionysus. It is highly possible the confusion is related to the Lord’s Supper. It seems that when the Corinthians gathered for the supper, many became drunk (11:21), and were eating the supper in an unworthy manner (11:27, and 11:29). These actions (generally any excessive behavior) resemble the mystery rites of Dionysus which are detrimental to the well-being of the oikos or family.50 For Paul, this behavior was detrimental to the oikos of Christ.
Does Paul hint that the Corinthians were engaging in the Lord’s Supper as a mystery rite? We can only find a subtle inference. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to be “servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (4:1). They are to do this by imitating him (4:16). Instead of excessive behaviors, desire to rule, and gaining worldly wisdom; the Corinthians are to be willing to suffer as Paul. Paul, then, does appear to be defining a new mystery ordained by God and revealed not in wine, oracles, or knowledge, but by the Spirit of God (2:10).

How else does Dionysus fit into the Corinthians’ religious practices? According to Dowden, Dionysus is the “arriving god” who represents the unrestrained forces in nature opposed to civilization and human (Greek) achievement.51 He becomes an outlet–a release–of wild enthusiasm necessary in balancing the rigors of civility. Dionysus, therefore, is not a contradiction to the Corinthians’ obsession with the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge; but an acceptable outlet of tension, pleasure, and other physical desires that are repressed for the sake of gaining knowledge. Dionysus is thus replaced with Christ who said He was the new wine, and the branch from which all vines shoot forth. Furthermore, the death, blood, and resurrection of Christ becomes representative of an oblation poured out for humankind just like how Dionysus (who also represents Spring growth) must die so that winter can set in; and then later be resurrected the next Spring so that vegetation can germinate once again. Just like Christ, Dionysus represents a rebirth and a renewal. And Christ, like Dionysus, is an arriving God for He is still to come at the parousia. The old myths of Dionysus, therefore, are not easily effaced from the minds of the Corinthians especially with so many similarities exhibited by Christ.

Conclusion

Our investigation has disproved three things and attempted to offer as two possibilities as better solutions. We have sufficiently disproved that the Corinthians had a Gnostic system. We also disproved the notion that Philonic Jewish Hellenism was the source of any gnosticizing or that it was transmitted through the ministry of Apollos. Finally, we disproved the notion of the Corinthians as proto-gnostics; the forerunners of Gnostic Christianity. We did, however, offer the possibilities that the Corinthians were experimenting with Platonic philosophy in an attempt to establish a theocracy, while also balancing this with the practice of mystery cultism possibly derived from the cult of Dionysus. What then emerged in Corinth was the syncretism of philosophy and religion, which is not too surprising since Corinth was a melting pot of cultural ideas in a world where everyone was searching for salvation identity without having to wait for the after-life.

Bibliography

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, trans.  Maxiwell Staniforth, New York:  Penguin Books Ltd., 1977.

Raymond Bryan Brown, “1 Corinthians,” The Broadman Bible Commentary, V.10, ed. Clifton J. Allen, Nashville:  The Broadman Press, 1970.

Celsus, On the True Doctrine:  A Discourse Against the Christians, trans.  R. Joseph Hoffmann, New York:  Oxford University Press, 1987.

Hans Conzelmann, “1 Corinthians,” Hermeneia, trans.  James W. Leitch, Philadelphia:  Fortress Press, 1975.

William G. Doty, “The Classification of Epistolary Literature,”  Catholic Biblical Quarterly, V.31, 1969, ed. Joseph Fitzmeyer, Washington D.C:  The Catholic Biblical Association of America.

Ken Dowden, The Uses of Greek Mythology, New York:  Routledge, 1992.

Michael Grant, The World of Rome, New York:  Penguin Books Ltd., 1960.

Richard A. Horsley, “Gnosis in Corinth:  1 Corinthians 8:1-6,” New Testament Studies, V.27, 1980-81, ed. R. Mcl. Wilson, New York:  Cambridge University Press.

Richard A. Horsley, “How Can Some of You Say that There is no Resurrection of the Dead?:  Spiritual Elitism in Corinth,” Novum Testamentum, V.20, 1978, ed. W.C. Van Unnik, Leiden, The Netherlands:  E. J. Brill.

Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, “The Evaluation of the Teaching of Jesus in Christian Gnostic Revelation Dialogues,” Novem Testamentum, V.30, 1988, ed. C.K. Barrett et. al., Leiden, The Netherlands:  E. J. Brill.

Plato, The Republic, trans.  Sir Desmond Lee, New York:  Penguin Books Ltd., 1987.

Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis:  The Nature and History of Gnosticism, trans. and ed.  Robert McLachlan Wilson, San Fransico:  HarperCollins Publishers, 1987.

Seneca, Letters From a Stoic, trans. Robin Campbell, New York:  Penguin Books Ltd., 1969.

Chester G. Starr, A History of the Ancient World, New York:  Oxford University Press, 1965.

Anthony Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” New Testament Studies, V.24, 1978, ed. R. Mcl. Wilson, New York:  Cambridge University Press.

Endnotes

1 Chester G. Starr, A History of the Ancient World, (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 604.
2 Actually, more often than not, the period was a time of cross-cultural sharing of old ideas.
3 Chester G. Starr, A History of the Ancient World, p. 604.
4 Michael Grant, The World of Rome, (New York:  Penguin Books Ltd., 1960), p. 149.
5 Ibid., p. 152.
6 Chester G. Starr, A History of the Ancient World, p. 605.
7 Ibid., pp. 605-606.
8 Seneca, Letters From a Stoic, trans. Robin Campbell, (New York:  Penguin Books Ltd., 1969), p. 37.  Excerpted from letter V.  Seneca goes on to say that life should be a compromise between the ideal and the popular morality.
9 Raymond Bryan Brown, “1 Corinthians,” The Broadman Bible Commentary, V.10, ed. Clifton J. Allen (Nashville:  Broadman Press, 1970), p. 287.
10 Ibid., p. 287.
11 Ibid., p. 291.
12 Ibid., p. 291.
13 Hans Conzelmann, “1 Corinthians,” Hermeneia, (Philadelphia:  Fortress Press, 1975), p.13.  The actual dates of Gallio’s proconsulship are uncertain as is the whole dating of Paul’s missionary travels.  This is the best working approximation.
14 Chester G. Starr, A History of the Ancient World, p. 607.
15 Richard A. Horsley, “Gnosis in Corinth:  1 Corinthians 8:1-6,” New Testament Studies, V.27, (New York:  Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 34.
16 In Chapters 4, 8, and 9 of Proverbs we see Lady Wisdom as the proper consort of the righteous and wise man.  Philo’s Sophia is more than a personification; he actually deifies her to the role of divine mediator to humanity and consort of God as an agent in creation.   Christian writers have done something similiar with ascribing “Logos” or word to Christ.
17 Richard A. Horsley, “Gnosis in Corinth 1 Corinthians 8:1-6,” p. 33.
18 Ibid., p. 34.
19 Ibid., p. 35.
20 Ibid., p. 34.
21 William G. Doty, “The Classification of Epistolary Literature,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, V.31, (Washington D.C:  The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1969), pp. 183-184.
22 Ibid., p. 193.
23 Paul describes four groups:  1) those who follow him, 2) those who follow Apollos, 3) those who follow Cephas–which is the Apostle Peter, and 4)  those who simply follow Christ.  Anthony Thiselton says that Paul attacks the Corinthians’ tendency to overvalue certain individual personalities (including himself), and also the danger of undervaluing the ministry as a whole.  Anthony C. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” New Testament Studies, V.24, (New York:  Cambridge University Press, 1978), p. 513.
24 Note the similarity between how Paul introduces slogans and how Seneca introduces a Stoic motto.  Both state how well known their slogans are.  This is a good example of how freely Stoic and Jewish ideas circulated within the Empire–enough for them to admit their popularity.  This is also shows that Paul realizes all of the factions were aware of these slogans and could identifiy with their message; whether they be Jew or Greek.
25 Richard A. Horsley, “Gnosis in Corinth,” p. 36.
26 Ibid., p. 37.
27 Celsus, On the True Doctrine, trans. R. Joseph Hoffmann, (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 53.
28 He was already teaching accurately from the scriptures from what he knew before Priscilla and Aquila met him.  They probably explained to Apollos that he should also preach to the gentiles like Paul.  They might have also explained about the Holy Spirit to him like Paul did to those in Ephesus, who like Apollos, had only the baptism of John.  It is unlikely that they explained the scriptures to Apollos because he was already “mighty” with them.
29 Richard A. Horsley, “How Can Some of You Say that There is no Resurrection of the Dead?:  Spiritual Elitism in Corinth,” Novum Testamentum, (Leiden, The Netherlands:  E. J. Brill, 1978), p. 229.
30 Hans Conzelmann, “1 Corinthians,” p. 15.
31 Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis:  The Nature and History of Gnosticism, trans.  and ed.  Robert Mclachlan Wilson, (San Fransico:  HarperCollins Publishers, 1987), p. 54.
32 Ibid., p. 54.
33 Ibid., p. 55.
34 Ibid., p. 57.
35 Ibid., p. 58.  Note that light and darkness are euphemisms for good and evil, body and matter for flesh and spirit, and the world with its rulers is the God of creation (the Demiurge); who is inferior to the invisible and incomprehensible true God of the universe and His consort Sophia.  The gnostic thus lives in an antithetical world where he or she is caught in the middle of the titanic struggle of the universal deities.  Gnosis is the key to escaping the Demiurge and reconciliation to the true God.
36 Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, “The Evaluation of the Teaching of Jesus in Christian Gnostic Revelation Dialogues,” Novum Testamentum, V.30, ed. C.K. Barrett et. al., (Leiden, The Netherlands:  E. J. Brill, 1988), p. 158.
37Ibid., pp. 160-161.  Yes it is possible that those who aligned themselves with Christ may have been claiming to have received some revelation from the risen Christ from heaven, but in all probability all they knew about Christ was what Paul had explained to them.  Ironically, Paul himself could be viewed as somekind of gnostic because of his revelation on the road to Damascus.  Paul, however, never describes his experience as mystic, but as a more humbling episode in his life that made him appreciate the human Jesus as his Lord.  If Paul were a gnostic, he could never had embraced the cross of Christ–an act of salvation achieved in the flesh and not the spirit.
38 Anthony C. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” p. 510.
39 Ibid., p. 510.
40 Ibid., p. 512.  Thiselton is using this argument to explain why the Corinthians overemphasized charismatic utterances–as necessary proof that they were living in God’s kingdom.
41 Ibid., p. 523.
42 Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, trans.  Maxwell Staniforth, (New York:  Penguin Books Ltd., 1977), p. 51.  Though Marcus Aurelius lived much later than our time period here, he is still one of the classic models of a Stoic.
43 Plato, The Republic, trans.  Desmond Lee, (New York:  Penguin Books Ltd., 1987), pp. 309-310.
44 Ibid., p. 311.  For Plato this is achieved by Philosophy.
45 Ibid., p. 311.
46 Ibid., p. 311.
47 Ibid., p. 311.
48 Ibid., p. 264.
49 Ken Dowden, The Uses of Greek Mythology, (New York:  Routledge, 1992) p. 166.
50 Ibid., p. 99.

The founding and evolution of Colonial New England is a historical topic well covered by Neal Salisbury in his monograph Manitou and Providence: Indians, Europeans, and the Making of New England, 1500-1643. Salisbury, a professor of Colonial North America at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts, is a specialist in early New England including the pre-Columbian era. Research fellowships at the Smithsonian Institution and the Newberry Library Center for the History of the American Indian; give Salisbury both the accreditation and prestige necessary for Manitou and Providence to be considered front line scholarship in American Colonial history.

Manitou and Providence describes the conquest of New England and the subsequent changes wrought by the incursion of European civilization upon the natives who already inhabited New England. Salisbury does not retell an already familiar story, but redirects the conversation pertaining to New England’s beginnings from one of “the incompatibility of Indian and English cultures” to one of “interdependent explanations” including the scientific—namely that of disease.¹ Salisbury initially tackles the problem of demography in the formation of his thesis. He notes that past demographic studies have varied tremendously in their findings of Indian populations prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Salisbury concedes that only estimates can be obtained from these previous studies and so he allots a range of numbers between 126,000 and 144,000 Indians living in pre-epidemic New England based on the ratio of one adult male per 7.5 females and children.²

Having set the baseline population, Salisbury proceeds into economic and technological differences between the Indians and their English counterparts.  According to Salisbury, the southern New England tribes,  were sedentary agriculturalists by the time the English arrived, and therefore, were more economically, politically, and demographically stable than their cousins to the North.³ However, once the southern Algonquian tribes began trading furs with the Europeans for technological upgrades to their tools and weapons, they gradually moved away from their sedentary agriculture in favor of a more interdependent relationship with the English colonists. This new found symbiotic relationship eventually deteriorated into cultural subordination as disease thinned out the Indian population.⁴ Furthermore, as disease and technological dependence weakened the Indians’ positional strength with the English, they found themselves the victims of military expansion.

Salisbury also comments on the growing acceptance of Christianity by many of the natives as they acclimated themselves to English “superiority.” Salisbury writes:

The Indians had accepted the superiority of English technology and had already “a little degenerated from some of their lazy customs and show[n] themselves more industrious.” By the same token, the customary habit of beseeching Hobbamock…when Kiehtan was inaccessible was giving way to an active interest in Christianity.⁵

The Indians perceived the English technological superiority as proof that the English had access to a more powerful god than they. The Indian notion of Manitou or “spirit” resided in all things that excelled; therefore, the Indians recognized that there must be a Manitou behind the prosperity of the English. Many Indians, thus, desired access to this new kind of Manitou.

Salisbury’s thesis is, for the most part, well developed and devoid of fruitless conjecture. His economic, demographic, and political explanations of how the English came to dominate New England carry much weight. It seems though at times Salisbury feels he needs to be apologetic for Indian actions, reactions, and rationale. It is often that he wishes to convey the settlers as the aggressors, antagonists, and malefactors. It is often overlooked that the Indians were seizing land from among themselves long before the Europeans began seizing it from them. Micmacs, Mohawks, Mohegans, Iroquois, and Narrangansetts were vying for hegemony in New England before the Mayflower ever anchored in Massachusetts Bay. Manitou and Providence, therefore, retains the double quality of being a thorough work of scholarship, but at the same time, borders on the edge of polemic against such things as inequality, discrimination, and European ethnocentrism. In History, there will always be winners and losers. The rightness or wrongness in historical events is not for the historian to decide. Yet, Neal Salisbury may be pardoned since he has excelled in his research above most in his field.