The cause of the divisions in the Corinthian church

I will argue here that the libertarian believers in Corinth were partly successful in turning the congregation against Paul and that this led to the divisions in the church that we see in 1 Corinthians.

Let us start by reading 2 Cor 12:16-13:3.

12:16 Let it be assumed that I did not burden you. Nevertheless (you say) since I was crafty, I took you in by deceit. Did I take advantage of you through any of those whom I sent to you? 18 I urged Titus to go, and sent the brother with him. Titus did not take advantage of you, did he? Did we not conduct ourselves with the same spirit? Did we not take the same steps? 12:19 Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves before you? We are speaking in Christ before God. Everything we do, beloved, is for the sake of building you up. 12:20 For I fear that when I come, I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish; I fear that there may perhaps be quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. 12:21 I fear that when I come again, my God may humble me before you, and that I may have to mourn over many who previously sinned and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and licentiousness that they have practiced. 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. "Any charge must be sustained by the evidence of two or three witnesses." 13:2 I warned those who sinned previously and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again, I will not be lenient - 13:3 since you desire proof that Christ is speaking in me.

Here Paul defends himself against criticism (12:16-18) and explains that he does so to prevent the church from falling into "quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder" (12:19-20). The logic of 2 Cor 12:16-20 requires that Paul is worried that criticism of himself could lead to quarreling etc.. It is not hard to imagine that if some Corinthians believers succeeded in denigrating Paul to the rest of the congregation, this could lead to symptoms of disunity such as quarreling etc.. 

Now, it seems to me that Paul is speaking from experience here, for 12:19, 12:21, and 13:2 all refer back to an earlier time. He must counter the slanders about himself because he knows from experience that they can lead to quarreling etc. in the Corinthian church.

Now, as commentators have pointed out, the quarreling etc. of 2 Cor 12:20 are the problems that Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians. Furthermore the sexual immorality of 2 Cor 12:21-13:3 also looms large in 1 Corinthians. Also, 1 Corinthians shows that Paul had been criticized by some Corinthian believers (See 1 Cor 4:1-5; 1 Cor 9:3 and probably 1 Cor 5:9-13 and 1 Cor 16:1-4). Some Corinthians, on hearing criticisms of Paul might well have decided to look around for another apostle and this could explain 1 Cor 1:12. It seems to me, therefore, that attempts by some to denigrate Paul had led to the problems that Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians, and that Paul says in 2 Cor 12:16-20 that he must defend himself so that the same thing does not happen again.

But who was behind these attempts to discredit Paul? I think it was those in the Corinthian church that had a sexually immoral, licentious philosophy. Here is why. Firstly, we have hints at 1 Cor 5:9-13 and 2 Cor 13:3 that they criticized Paul. Secondly, they stood to gain if Paul lost authority in Corinth. Paul disciplined a sexually immoral individual in 1 Cor 5:1-8 and threatened others in 2 Cor 12:21-13:2 and 1 Cor 4:21, but without the support of the church, he would be powerless to enforce his sexual ethics on the licentious believers. The licentious believers would be able to practice their sexual immorality with impunity if they could discredit Paul. 2 Cor 12:16-13:3 confirms that criticism of Paul increased sexual immorality in Corinth (otherwise what is the connection between 2 Cor 12:16-20 and 2 Cor 12:21-13:3? Paul is surely saying that he must defend his reputation lest the licentious continue their sexual immorality in the confidence that he will not be able to punish them.

We need not assume that the licentious attacked Paul only in relation to the issue of sexual ethics. Like a politician in an election campaign, they would seize any opportunity to smear their opponent. Thus they may, for example, have been behind the accusation that Paul intended to defraud the Corinthians (see 2 Cor 12:16-18 and probably 1 Cor 16:1-4), or the criticism that he was not an eloquent speaker, as well as  the bringing of Paul to judgement (1 Cor 4:1-5).

In summary, Paul clashed with the sexually immoral in Corinth so they chose to try to undermine his authority in the church by discrediting him in the eyes of the other members of the congregation. This led to disunity.

The chief culprit seems to have been the offender of 2 Cor 2 & 7. See my earlier post here.

The sequence of Paul's interactions with the Corinthians

The Corinthian correspondence contains data about the Paul's travels, his travel plans, the movements of Titus and "Timothy", changes in Paul's relationship to the Corinthian church, and the progress of the collection. Commentators, who suffer from the double-vision of seeing Titus and Timothy as different people, have not been able to explain these data, except by constructing implausibly complicated sequences of events involving a lot of repetition. However, when we recognize that Titus was Timothy, an elegantly simple sequence comes into focus:

1. Paul returned to Corinth from Ephesus and, having found sexual immorality among the Corinthian believers, he warned them that he would not be lenient with them when he came back (2 Cor 12:21-13:2).
2. Paul returned to Ephesus.
3. Paul wrote a letter to Corinth, telling them not to mix with sexually immoral people in the church (1 Cor 5:9). This letter may have been delivered by Chloe's people. Paul may have indicated in this letter that he would visit Corinth soon.
4. Paul received news (probably from Chloe's people when they returned) that many of the Corinthian believers were rejecting Paul and his ethos (1 Cor 4), and that they had misinterpreted his letter (1 Cor 5:9-10).
5. Instead of visiting Corinth at the planned time, Paul decided to send Titus-Timothy, with  Erastus and a severe letter, to Corinth (via Macedonia) to give them zeal for Paul and his teaching so that he would not have to be harsh with them when he next visited (1 Cor 4:17-21; 2 Cor 7:12; 2 Cor 1:14; 2 Cor 1:23-2:3). Paul was confident that Titus-Timothy's mission and the severe letter would bring about the desired reconciliation (2 Cor 1:14-15; 2:3; 7:14), so he planned to visit Corinth soon after. Paul planned to make this visit to Corinth and then to proceed to Macedonia before returning to Corinth (2 Cor 1:15-16).
6. Meanwhile those in Corinth who rejected Paul became arrogant and defiant at Paul's failure to arrive at the originally appointed time (1 Cor 4:18-21).
7. Stephanas et al arrived from Corinth in the spring and refreshed Paul's spirit (1 Cor 16:17-18). Titus-Timothy had been delayed and had not yet arrived in Corinth. There was no longer sufficient time for Paul to make a proper visit to Corinth on his way to Macedonia (1 Cor 16:7).
8. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, apologetically explaining that he would not be visiting them before Macedonia (1 Cor 16:5-8). As in the severe letter, he corrected the misunderstanding of his former letter (1 Cor 5:9-10), and urged them to recognize him (1 Cor 4). Paul commended Titus-Timothy's mission (1 Cor 4:17; 16:10-11) and instructed the Corinthians to start the collection soon (1 Cor 16:1-2). He told them that he would leave Ephesus soon (at Pentecost) (1 Cor 16:8).
9. Titus-Timothy finally arrived in Corinth, where he was received well (2 Cor 7:15), in obedience to Paul's earlier instructions (1 Cor 16:10-11). The severe letter brought the Corinthians to repentance. They turned on one prominent offender and punished him (2 Cor 2:4-8; 7:7-11). Titus-Timothy started the collection in Corinth (2 Cor 8:6). However, the Corinthians did not understand why Paul had cancelled his visit (2 Cor 1:17). The 'super-apostles' probably arrived in Corinth at about that time.
10. Titus-Timothy's delay made it impossible for him to meet up with Paul in Ephesus, or even to intercept him in the Troad (2 Cor 2:12-13). So Titus-Timothy travelled directly to Macedonia and met Paul there (2 Cor 7:5-6).
11. Paul wrote 2 Corinthians.

In short:
The news from Chloe's people caused Paul to delay his announced visit to Corinth until after Titus-Timothy's mission. Titus-Timothy was delayed and, at the time of 1 Corinthians, Paul abandoned the visit completely because time no longer allowed it. Titus-Timothy eventually arrived in Corinth with the severe letter and met Paul in Macedonia.

For detailed arguments in support of many of the elements of this sequence, see R. Fellows "Was Titus Timothy?", JSNT 81 (2001) 33-58.

Notice how most of the events recorded in 2 Corinthians are, with this reconstruction, either reported or anticipated in 1 Corinthians. However, those who see Titus and Timothy as different people, place all the events recorded in 2 Corinthians after the writing of 1 Corinthians, creating intolerable deja vu.

This is the eleventh post in the series on Titus-Timothy.

Rom 16:21-23 and the missing names

With a single hypothesis I will show that a) In Rom 16:21-23 Paul sends greetings from everyprominent believer who was in Corinth at the time, b) There were no prominent believers in Corinth when 1 Corinthians was written, c) Acts mentions all of Paul's prominent co-workers.

In Romans 16 Paul sends greetings to no fewer than 26 individuals and others. As is often pointed out, he does this to emphasize his close links with the Roman church. In Rom 16:21-23 he sends greetings from 8 companions, and, in the collectivist culture of the day, this further emphasizes the strong close relationship between Paul and the church of Rome. We should therefore expect that Paul would send greetings from every prominent believer who was with him in Corinth during the days or weeks when he wrote the letter. Any conspicuous absences from the greeters would have raised eyebrows in Rome. There are, however, 4 names that are strangely absent from the list. These are shown in the red box below.

Titus was sent to Corinth shortly before Romans was written (2 Cor 8). Furthermore, he was to bring the collection to completion in Corinth (2 Cor 8:6) and was the Corinthians' co-worker. We should therefore expect that he would be the Corinthian's delegate to deliver their collection to Judea.

Stephanas is also absent, in spite of the high praise that Paul has for him in 1 Cor 16:15-17.

Crispus was an archisynagogos, and therefore his important role is recognized by Luke (Acts 18:8). He was one of the first converts in Corinth and was baptized by Paul himself (1 Cor 1:14). The omission of Stephanas and Crispus is surprising as it would have been seen as a snub to the church of Rome, or indeed to Stephanas and Crispus themselves.

Acts 20:4 names those who must have assembled in Corinth when Romans was written. The first named is Sopater/Sosipater, who does send greetings. Second, and therefore also prominent, is Aristarchus. He had been chosen to deliver the collection from Thessalonica and was therefore a leading, trusted, believer. We travelled a lot on church business, and was therefore widely known (Acts 19:29, 27:2)

The green box in the diagram also highlights another problem: the name "Titus" is strangely absent from Acts, and the same is true of "Stephanas". Acts mentions all Paul's other important co-workers (Luke chooses to down-play Paul's imprisonments, and therefore has no occasion to mention Epaphroditus).

The blue box represents further problems. We read in 1 Corinthians that there were divisions in the church of Corinth, and this problem is explicable if there was a power vacuum there. But if Gaius-Titius-Justus, Erastus, and Crispus were all in Corinth at that time there could be no power vacuum, and the divisions would be somewhat surprising. James Dunn writes, "Even if we assume that the problems in Corinth were being caused by some of the leaders - the patron, or elite group in the church - it is hardly likely that there was not one to whom Paul could appeal." (Beginning from Jerusalem p639). Paul urges the Corinthians to unite behind Stephanas, but makes no mention of Gaius, Erastus, or Crispus in this context.

There is a further problem associated with the presence in Corinth, of these prominent Corinthians at that time. At that time not many of the Corinthians were powerful or of noble birth (1 Cor 1:26). Yet Gaius was able to host the whole church, Erastus was the oikonomos and Crispus was the former synagogue ruler! The church of Corinth met together in the house of Gaius (Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 11:18; 14:23) and from this it is generally estimated that it can have consisted of no more than 50 people. Paul's statement that "not many" of them were of high social status is therefore surprising if those fewer than 50 people included Gaius, Erastus, Crispus, and all Crispus's household (Acts 18:8), especially when it is remembered that only about 3% of urban populations were rich.

The solution to all the problems outline above is the observation that we are looking at some cases of double naming. The practice of giving new names in the early church did not die out after the cases of Simon-Peter and Joseph-Barnabas, and then revive with the case of Ignatius-Theophorus. No, I propose that new names were also given to prominent members of Paul's churches. This is hardly a radical suggestion, yet it sheds a flood of light on the New Testament. All four people in the red box above have dopplegängers elsewhere, as indicated by the dotted lines.

Udo Borse and I have argued that Titus was Timothy. John Chrysostom, A. Myrou, and I have argued that Crispus was Sosthenes. Stephen Carlson and I suggested that Stephanas was Gaius Titius Justus. I have also argued on this blog that Aristarchus was Jason. Each of these 4 cases, the name that occurs later chronologically is Greek and has a meaning that suits the individual perfectly. I believe that the Titus-Timothy hypothesis and the Crispus-Sosthenes hypothesis are each strong enough to stand alone, and it is certainly possible to assess each case individually. But I am now struck by the synergy between these four hypotheses in the way that they collectively solve the problems described above.

The red box is emptied: Titus-Timothy, Gaius-Titius-Justus-Stephanas, and Jason-Aristarchus all send greetings to the Romans. Crispus-Sosthenes was probably in Ephesus when Paul wrote Romans (1 Cor 1:1).

The Green box is emptied: Both Titus-Timothy and Gaius-Titius-Justus-Stephanas are mentioned in Acts.

The blue box is emptied: Gaius-Titius-Justus-Stephanas and Crispus-Sosthenes were both in Ephesus with Paul when 1 Corinthians was written. Furthermore, if Titus was Timothy, he was on his way to Corinth via Macedonia with Erastus (see Acts 19:22 and 2 Cor 12:18) when 1 Corinthians was written. Therefore Erastus too was absent from Corinth at the time.

Having emptied all the problem boxes we get the following picture:

In short, it seems to me that the new name hypothesis brings the NT into sharper focus. We see that Paul sent greetings to the church of Rome from all the prominent believers who were in Corinth at the time. We see that Luke is silent about no important companions of Paul. Finally, we see that Paul had few, if any, high status friends in Corinth when 1 Corinthians was written, and this explains how divisions had arisen, and how Paul could write that not many of his addressees were of high social standing.