Did Paul found the church in Corinth?

[davidmartin]

Let's line this question up, it could be expanded to, did he found any church he writes to?

Paul's letters are to churches he founded but his visits to them appear infrequent as he storms across the region
The repeating pattern seems to be, he leaves and trouble arises in his absence necessitating strongly worded letters and threats of further visits or even the feared 'double blessing' of two visits
Did he not appoint any overseers blessed with his authority?
He never mentions any and it would seem an obvious thing to do

In Corinthians he has to get his information from 'Chloe's household', that doesn't sound like he has anyone in charge there

what's going on?

If Paul had founded the Corinthian church he would have left someone in charge surely, and even if he hadn't would have left a rep behind
If he didn't then was he just trying to undermine the existing leadership awaiting for new leaders to naturally arise, but that hadn't happened yet, or did he fear losing control and try and control it all centrally?
but he knew he had competition from the super apostles and they would be waiting to see him leave so they could start undermining him - and the rap sheet he defends himself from is pretty heavy

this doesn't sound like a good setup to be the dominant gospel in the latter first century, but a minority yet because all we have is his writings it makes it appear his gospel is almost the only one. Is this an illusion?
because, if the earliest writings post-Paul are the gospels, the didache and the shepherd of hermas. They are dramatically different in all sorts of ways to what Paul said

all it takes is if the pastoral are post-Marcion and Ignatius isn't authentic and 1 Clement is 2nd century there's not much evidence Paul's gospel was dominant before the mid 2nd century but that he was rediscovered later on

I don't think Paul found the Corinthian church but was preaching into an existing movement that was already spread about and tried to build on top of it, he succeeded only eventually long after he was gone!

Put it another way, if Paul's gospel had been dominant in the late 1st century, would we have any gospels?

[rgprice]

These are good questions. Paul's letters give the impression that there were existing churches. In Romans he says that there was a Roman church before he ever started his ministry. He says that his relatives were apostles before him.

In Galatians he says that he taught them about the mysteries of Christ while they took care of him, but surely they were an existing church when they took him in, we just don't know exactly what the existing church liturgy was.

I suspect that there were existing "churches:. We don't know what the liturgy of those churches were. We don't know if those churches already worshiped "Joshua the Anointed" or not, and if they did worship Joshua, did they think that Joshua was crucified? Was the crucifixion of Joshua Paul's special twist on an existing liturgy, or was that pre-existing?

Did any of the churches prior to Paul teach against circumcision, or was that Paul's special teaching?

this doesn't sound like a good setup to be the dominant gospel in the latter first century, but a minority yet because all we have is his writings it makes it appear his gospel is almost the only one. Is this an illusion?

I think Paul's ministry was not that influential in his own time. The reason that Paul became an important figure is because of the Gospel of Mark and possibly because few other ministries wrote anything down. For example it seems that there were no writings from the real Peter/Cephas. So, whatever Peter's influence was in his own time, it didn't carry forward because there were no writings.

But the real key is the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark was written by a Pauline follower. It casts Paul as Jesus and puts all of Paul's teachings in Jesus' mouth. The Gospel of Mark was likely bundled with the Pauline letters and thus the Gospels and Paul's letter formed the basis of various liturgies. It was the Gospels that really got people's attention and popularized the religion. Prior to the Gospels it was an insignificant movement. Because Paul's letters were associated with the Gospels, that's what really pushed Paul's letters into widespread usage. Also, I believe Paul's letter collection formed outside of Judea and thus survived the war, whereas whatever Judean based liturgy and organization there may have been likely didn't survive the war.

[davidmartin]

Interesting RG yes it gave me a thought...

why should it be assumed these churches were only formed after the crucifixion. the gospels are at pains to portray Jesus as having followers but not a congregation. They even deny Jesus the ability to baptise with the holy spirit during his lifetime, which effectively prevents him having a messianic congregation ("And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy")

It also prevents Mary Magdalene being the first Christian because she doesn't tick the 'reception of the holy spirit until pentecost' box, but maybe the box wasn't originally there to be ticked?

So I agree Paul's theology does find it's way into the gospels and they got re-written by a 'Pauline follower'. Not so sure they originated from them though.

[mlinssen]

I think the entire and only goal of Paul was to pretend there were churches - all of them conveniently located so far away

Why wasn't there a letter to a Jerusalem church, oh and surely there must have been a church in Bethlehem or Nazareth?

Paul is the typical pre-sales teasing and tickling everyone into a customer base while the product is still in development (or entirely non existent) - that, and he's clear about said product being a copy of someone else's because of all his defences and refutations, the entire circumcision circus attesting to a main aspect of that: he is clearly addressing a Jewish audience about an existing "Gentile" movement, none of whose followers lost his foreskin of course, among other things

Paul is selling a Gentile product to a Jewish future customer base under the fake cloak of a firmly established "company" seemingly evidenced by these conveniently far away locations, and of course he doesn't drop any names of people in charge there, exactly like the canonicals have JtB do his baptism thing "around the region of the Jordan", a 250 mile long river, with the whole purpose that no one can ever verify anything about it

And Paul needs to pretend it's all big and settled so there can't be any discussion about anything he makes up

Paul clearly hijacked the movement, Mark then clearly made up the character of Jesus. What just puzzles me is why none of the two ever points to the other in any way - that, or it is too subtle for me (and that point of saturation is reached fairly quickly, I can tell you)

[davidmartin]

Paul clearly hijacked the movement, Mark then clearly made up the character of Jesus. What just puzzles me is why none of the two ever points to the other in any way - that, or it is too subtle for me (and that point of saturation is reached fairly quickly, I can tell you)

Yeah, I think he might of. The Odes seem to suggest such a thing in his direction:

"But again Grace was swift and dismissed the Corruptor, and descended upon him to renounce him.
And he caused utter destruction before him, and corrupted all his work.
And he stood on the peak of a summit and cried aloud from one end of the earth to the other.
Then he drew to him all those who obeyed him, for he did not appear as the Evil One"

"And I asked the Truth, Who are these? And He said to me: This is the Deceiver and the Error.
And they imitate the Beloved and His Bride, and they cause the world to err and corrupt it.
And they invite many to the wedding feast, and allow them to drink the wine of their intoxication;
So they cause them to vomit up their wisdom and their knowledge, and prepare for them mindlessness
Since there is no understanding in them, neither do they seek it"

I'm not so sure i'd be surprised if this was about Paul
But even if that's so... the Odes and Paul have a lot in common, and agree with each other quite a bit even if neither side would have admitted it at the time

[rgprice]

Paul clearly hijacked the movement, Mark then clearly made up the character of Jesus. What just puzzles me is why none of the two ever points to the other in any way - that, or it is too subtle for me (and that point of saturation is reached fairly quickly, I can tell you)

Mark very clearly points to Paul. All of Jesus' teachings in Mark come from Paul. Indeed it can be argued that all of Jesus' teachings in the Synoptics come from Paul. The book by David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels, does a good job of addressing this topic.

I'll be arguing in my new book that the Gospel of Mark is actually based upon the source that was used by the author of Acts of the Apostles, i.e. that there is a lost Acts of Paul (not the one we know) which was the basis for both the Gospel of Mark and the second half of Acts of the Apostles. In this story, Paul travels from Troas to Ephesus to Jerusalem (with a few stops along the way) where Paul is arrested, put on trial, and then killed in Jerusalem. The writer of Acts added a longer ending to have Paul travel on to Rome. The writer of Mark re-wrote that story about Paul, putting Jesus in Paul's place.

[mlinssen]

Mark very clearly points to Paul. All of Jesus' teachings in Mark come from Paul. Indeed it can be argued that all of Jesus' teachings in the Synoptics come from Paul. The book by David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels, does a good job of addressing this topic.

I'll be arguing in my new book that the Gospel of Mark is actually based upon the source that was used by the author of Acts of the Apostles, i.e. that there is a lost Acts of Paul (not the one we know) which was the basis for both the Gospel of Mark and the second half of Acts of the Apostles. In this story, Paul travels from Troas to Ephesus to Jerusalem (with a few stops along the way) where Paul is arrested, put on trial, and then killed in Jerusalem. The writer of Acts added a longer ending to have Paul travel on to Rome. The writer of Mark re-wrote that story about Paul, putting Jesus in Paul's place.

I'll check out the book, yet there remains the issue of the 35 parallels with Thomas, regardless of direction of dependence those clearly are there

I'm writing a book as well, it is a full commentary on Thomas. I'm currently at logion 13 and already there are many dozens of pointers to Thomas being original.
I'll take your word for Mark pointing to Paul, you have an awful lot more background there than I do

Paul has a dozen pointers to Thomas at best, only touching topics and doing nothing verbatim unlike Mark or the other three.
My question to you then: does your presumed "lost Acts of Paul (not the one we know)" contain the parallel material?

[rgprice]

See Tom Dyksra's Mark Canonizer of Paul.

[perseusomega9]

See Tom Dyksra's Mark Canonizer of Paul.

excellent book

[perseusomega9]

Paul clearly hijacked the movement, Mark then clearly made up the character of Jesus. What just puzzles me is why none of the two ever points to the other in any way - that, or it is too subtle for me (and that point of saturation is reached fairly quickly, I can tell you)

Mark very clearly points to Paul. All of Jesus' teachings in Mark come from Paul. Indeed it can be argued that all of Jesus' teachings in the Synoptics come from Paul. The book by David Oliver Smith, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul: The Influence of the Epistles on the Synoptic Gospels, does a good job of addressing this topic.

I'll be arguing in my new book that the Gospel of Mark is actually based upon the source that was used by the author of Acts of the Apostles, i.e. that there is a lost Acts of Paul (not the one we know) which was the basis for both the Gospel of Mark and the second half of Acts of the Apostles. In this story, Paul travels from Troas to Ephesus to Jerusalem (with a few stops along the way) where Paul is arrested, put on trial, and then killed in Jerusalem. The writer of Acts added a longer ending to have Paul travel on to Rome. The writer of Mark re-wrote that story about Paul, putting Jesus in Paul's place.

You might want to read MacDonald's The Legend and the Apostle. He discusses how the pastorals were reacting to other stories of Paul not found in the NT. The focus of the book is very tight with a feminist reading, but you'll probably be able to find something helpful to your thesis in there.