Folks, (Nijay here), we are concluding a Substack series on 1 Corinthians. Dr. Timothy Brookins is a great historian and biblical scholar, and author of several books including the **brand new** Eerdmans title REDISCOVERING THE WISDOM OF THE CORINTHIANS: PAUL, STOICISM, AND SPIRITUAL HIERARCHY (2024). Tim was kind enough to agree to do a 6-part series introducing some of the key ideas and insights from his scholarship on the background and context of 1 Corinthians. This is PART 6. For PART 1, CLICK HERE, PART 2, CLICK HERE, PART 3, CLICK HERE, PART 4, CLICK HERE, PART 5, CLICK HERE.
Part 6: Paul and His Philosophical School in Corinth
It remains to explain how this “sub-Stoic” wisdom, or “sub(ordinated) Stoicism” (1 Cor 1:17b-4:21), related to the church’s “factions” (1:10-17a). The final chapters of Rediscovering address this question, as part of a full reconstruction of the letter’s occasion that includes consideration of sources of Stoicism in the Corinthians’ immediate context, the likelihood of Corinthian contact with Stoic teaching given their social profile, the manner of the formation of the factions, and the “wise” Corinthians’ conception of their prestigious group.
My proposal is this: the Corinthian sophoi had direct exposure to Stoic teaching through local sources, and having interpreted (i.e., “doctrinally reformulated”) Paul’s teaching through the framework of Stoicism, nevertheless viewed themselves as Paul’s loyal students, their group as a philosophical school, and Paul as its founder.
The Phenomenon of Philosophical Allegiance
After a lengthy salutation (1:1-9), Paul gets right to his letter’s point: there is “dissension” among the Corinthians (1:11). In fact, they seem to have divided into factions: “each” of them says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ” (1:12). These slogans, so-called, have raised many questions, which need not detain us. In brief, I take the position that there were actual parties in the church and that those named were included—although the parties may not have been so clearly defined; these may not have been the only parties; and probably many people claimed no membership to any of them.
How, then, did these factions relate to the issue of wisdom? Contrary to common opinion, I suggest that the Corinthian sophoi were not opponents of Paul (and loyalists of Apollos), but rather were none other than the primary constituents of the Paul-party. They viewed themselves as his students, and he as their teacher.
The practices of the ancient philosophical schools show just how naturally the Corinthians’ claim to “wisdom” and their sectarian allegiance to Paul fit together. Ancient philosophical schools were described as “sects,” or literally, “choices” (haireseis). By committing himself to a particular set of doctrines, a philosopher was actually committing himself to the authority of the founding teacher. Thus, what defined an “Epicurean” was allegiance to the teachings of Epicurus, and likewise for “Platonists” (Plato), “Pythagoreans” (Pythagoras), or “Stoics,” who were first known as “Zenonians” (Zeno). This culture of “philosophical allegiance” was so staunch that it provoked relentless criticism from the one school that refused to participate, i.e., the Skeptical Academy. The “skeptics” ridiculed the “dogmatic” schools for committing themselves to “the authority of just one man,” for enslaving themselves to his teachings “as if by bonds,” and for allowing no argument to persuade them otherwise.
This context elucidates the nature of the Paul-party’s slogan: “I am of Paul” was akin to saying “I am a Platonist,” or “I choose the way of Pythagoras.”
Why, then, does Paul rebuke them—that is, not just for their dissension, but for the “wisdom” that they imagine they have derived from his very teaching? The “interaction” types discussed in our first post provide the answer. Philosophers not uncommonly engaged in “doctrinal reformulation” of their teacher’s teachings (interaction type 7), while continuing to identify as members of his school and believing that they have remained faithful. Here, the Corinthians have “reformulated” Paul’s teaching in the direction of Stoicism, by “appropriating,” either competitively (interaction type 4) or irenically (interaction type 3), a cluster of systemically-related Stoic doctrines, as summarized in posts four and five.
If, as interpreters agree, the rise of “wisdom” in the church was the primary exigency that prompted the church’s divisions as addressed in 1 Corinthians 1-4, then it follows from my analysis that we must understand the Paul-party to have been the first party to form. Others then formed in response.
Philosophy in the Roman Empire and Roman Corinth
I have argued that the Corinthians’ indebtedness to Stoicism extended to some level of substance, technicality, and systemic interrelation of parts (posts 4-5). If this level of appropriation would have required some kind of direct exposure, I make the case in the book that such exposure is plausible based on evidence not only attesting to the pervasiveness of philosophy in the early Roman period, but also to its presence in first-century Roman Corinth.
Several studies and available databases of literary and epigraphical evidence reveal that those who either considered themselves “philosophers” (philosopoi, philosophi) or made philosophy an important part of their “identity-construction” were far more abundant in the Roman milieu than is usually appreciated. Here, I will only note a couple of particularly relevant points about this data, with appeal to data from Roman Corinth.
First, literary and epigraphic evidence reveals at least as many, if not slightly more, “philosophers” in Corinth in the first and second centuries AD than “rhetoricians/sophists.” Second, all attestations of rhetoricians/sophists date from the second century, none from the first. Third, attestation not only exists for philosophers in Corinth in the first century AD, but at least two individuals are identifiable as “Stoics” and datable to the middle of the century. These included a certain “Bassus” and a certain “Lucius Peticius Propas.”
Paul’s Sub-Stoic School in Corinth
Several known individuals in the Corinthian church shared a profile that made acquaintance with Greek philosophy a reasonable possibility: Gentile males of well-to-do status. This isn’t the place to quibble about the precise level of their socio-economic status; many studies have addressed this issue elsewhere and are taken into account in my study.
I have not, however, attempted to identify precisely which individuals belonged to the sophos group—and in any case its membership could have included, and probably did include, church members not known. To round out my reconstruction fully, however, I indulge in my final chapter in some further speculation about the context of and reasons for this group’s formation. When during his eighteen-month visit to Corinth Paul was finally ejected from the synagogue, we are told that he re-stationed himself in the house of a certain (most probably) Gentile named Titius Justus, whose accommodations suggest that he must have been of higher means. Here, in Titius’ house, those who belonged to the Paul-party that took shape in his absence, began to form a conception of this instructional center as a philosophical school, with Paul as its teacher and they as his “wise” students. Perhaps Titius or his associates knew Bassus or Lucius? Who knows. But the evidence is there to male plausible the possibility of social connections between Titius or his circle and philosophers in the area.
If you appreciated this post, subscribe to Engaging Scripture!
Wow!!! The Chapter 10 summary hit me like a good plot twist. I'll be curious to read the full chapter for Tim's argument of/why the Pauline school may have been the first to form–or if it's even all that important or not what the chronology of the factions may have been. It also leaves me wondering about the supposed origins of the Corinthian slogans. Under chapter 10's thesis, is there any higher likelihood that Paul may be quoting... himself?! That is, he remembered teaching something years ago, but saw how it was changed/abused by his sophoi students, so then issued new statements to temper his old ones.
“But the evidence is there to male plausible the possibility of social connections between Titius or his circle and philosophers in the area.” I assume “male” should be “make”?