Ben C. Smith wrote:Open questions: Is Paul worried about gospels that are preaching a noncrucified Christ? Or is he worried about gospels that are misinterpreting a crucified Christ? If the former, why does he spend virtually all his time (in Galatians, for example) decrying gentile circumcision rather than more directly attacking the opposing storyline? If the latter, what does it mean, then (in some way that does not blunt the sharpness of the accusation), to preach another Jesus? What are the merits of each case?
Paul’s rhetoric is all about maintaining his authority (and hence his potential for compensation). Paul’s authority was dependent upon his congregations accepting the story of his Christ spirit that he had told them during his evangelizing visit. That story, and all the associated implications that Paul heaped upon it, constituted “the gospel”.
There is no convincing evidence in the letter to the Galatians that the troublemakers were from outside the local area, or that they were even believers in the Christ. The internal evidence is entirely consistent with a local problem --- with Jewish acquaintances of Paul’s congregation. Jewish acquaintances that apparently had no problem with Paul’s story of a salvific figure found in the scriptures by means of allegorical Midrash, but they objected to the claims that Paul’s congregation could be full participants with the people of Israel without the benefit of circumcision.
Many in Paul's Galatian congregation were well-versed in the Jewish scriptures, otherwise Paul's complex arguments from the scriptures in chapters 3 and 4 of his letter would be of little meaning to his group. Perhaps before Paul came along, some within his group were Gentile “God-fearers” participating in some Jewish activities. What is clear, is that being part of the “Israel of God” was of utmost importance to Paul's Galatian congregation.
Paul’s letters to the Corinthians can give the impression that this group constituted what we might call a congregation of the Christ. However, IMO, Paul’s authority with this group was tenuous and fleeting --- off-and-on --- and in the end apparently lost.
Many of the proud, rambunctious, and sophisticated Corinthians were also fickle. Apparently not unlike some New-Agers of today --- attracted to each novel and intriguing spiritual promise that comes along. Paul’s Christ spirit caught their fancy --- at least for a while.
Ben C. Smith wrote:1 Corinthians 1.11-24 NASB:
11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” ...
I’ve presented my opinion on this situation in another thread, but since it also addressed another issue, I’ll cut-and-paste the pertinent portion with some minor editing ----
This passage has spawned a wide variety of interpretations. Many, to my mind, are too convoluted. Paul devotes many verses to address the perceived competition from his co-worker Apollos, and I’ll elaborate on that below. But one can only guess about the references to Cephas and the Christ, as neither had visited the congregation. So, on those two, I’ll just provide plausible scenarios.
Perhaps some of the Corinthians found, in the primacy of the spiritual awakening of Cephas, their preferred human role-model in the Christ spirit. According to Paul's retelling of tradition that he had previously told the Corinthians, Cephas was the first human to experience knowledge of the heavenly Christ spirit. (1 Cor. 15, verses 1, 3 and 5). That would make Cephas a founding figure --- a revered and prominent position in most spiritual movements.
Paul's mention of "I'm of Christ" seems to present a difficult challenge to explain, and generates a wide range of interpretations. After all, weren't they all with Christ? I don’t think the phrase needs to create a problem. Some among the fractious and sophisticated Corinthians were already "full", as Paul accused them;
"Already you are full, already you were enriched, apart from us you reigned. I wish you did reign, that we might also reign with you." (1 Cor. 4:8).
Certainly some among the Corinthians might have said, "Why do we need Apollos, or Cephas, or even Paul? We don't need any of them. We need nothing more than the spirit of god through Christ --- I'm with Christ." (… apostles, we don’t need no stinkin’ apostles)
And now back to Apollos, who was apparently no longer in Corinth by this time. (1 Cor. 16:12). Paul devoted all of chapter 3 to address the perceived threat from Apollos.
After Paul first evangelized the Corinthian congregation, Apollos apparently remained behind, as a coworker,
"So, who is Apollos? And who is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, and to each as the Lord gave. I planted and Apollos watered … he that plants and he that waters are one … for we are God's fellow-workers … " (1 Cor. 3:5-9).
Some of the Corinthians really must have liked this Apollos, for the jealous and assertive Paul to claim only a place of equality for himself. Paul needed to bring Apollos down a few notches, to plant some seeds of doubt, but he had to tread carefully,
“According to the grace of God having been given to me, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation, but another is building upon it. But let every man take heed how he builds ...” (1 Corinthians 3:10).
Directly following this passage, Paul cast doubts on the quality of the building Apollos constructed on his foundation, saying whether built of precious metals or stones or wood or hay or straw --- in fire the quality of each one's work will be revealed. (1 Cor. 3:12-15).
Continuing to cast doubts on the work of Apollos,
"Don't you know that you are the temple of God and the spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, as are you." (1 Cor. 3:16-17).
Except for another brief and related mention in chapter 4, and a brief mention in chapter 16 indicating that Apollos was in Ephesus at the time, we hear no more about Apollos from Paul.
In the end, it's just Paul working hard to maintain his authority and his leadership --- his path to god through his Christ.
As an example, the Corinthians seemed to have trouble accepting Paul’s concept of the resurrection of the dead --- for Paul, a concept central to “the gospel”. See this OP ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1383
Paul seems to have finally lost most of the Corinthians after they had been visited by Jewish missionaries that apparently presented dazzling mystical exegeses on Moses. See this OP (part 2) ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=785
IMO, the Corinthian correspondence becomes easier to understand if the work of the final compiler is sorted out and the multiple letters are rearranged into a set closer to their original form by using the various subplots to restore the chronological sequence. See this OP (parts one and two) ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=829
