1 Corinthians 1:12

“But I mean this (τοῦτο δὲ λέγω), that each one of you is saying (instead of your all saying the same thing, 10), ‘I am of Paul (am Paul's man),' ‘But I of Apollos,' ‘But I of Cephas,' ‘But I of Christ'!” ἕκαστος, distributive, as in 1 Corinthians 14:26 : each is saying one or other of these things; the party cries are quoted as from successive speakers challenging each other.

The question of the FOUR COR. PARTIES is one of the standing problems of N.T. criticism. It is fully examined, and the judgments of different critics are digested, by Gd [146] ad loc [147]; see also Mr [148] -Hn [149], Einleitung, § 3; Weiss' Manual of Introd. to the N.T., § 19. After all, this was only a brief phase of Church life at Cor [150]; P. had just heard of it when he wrote, by the time of 2 Cor [151] a new situation has arisen. The three first parties are easy to account for: (1) The body of the Ch., converted under P.'s ministry, adhered to its own apostle; P. valued this loyalty and appeals to it, while he condemns its combative expression, the disposition of men “more Pauline than Paul himself” (Dods) to exalt him to the disparagement of other leaders, and even to the detriment of Christ's glory. (2) Apollos (cf. Acts 18:24 ff.) had preached at Cor [152], in the interval since Paul's first departure, with brilliant effect. He possessed Alexandrian culture and a graceful style, whereas P. was deemed at Cor [153] ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ (2 Corinthians 11:6). Some personal converts Ap. had made; others were taken with his genial method, and welcomed his teaching as more advanced than P.'s plain gospel-message. Beside the more cultured Greeks, there would be a sprinkling of liberally-minded Jews, men of speculative bias imbued with Greek letters, who might prefer to say Ἐγὼ Ἀπολλώ. Judging from this Ep., the Pauline and Apollonian sections included at present the bulk of the Church, divided between its “planter” and “waterer”. Ἀπολλώς, of Attic 2nd decl., is probably short for Ἀπολλώνιος. (3) In a Judæo-Gentile Church the cry “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” was certain to be met with the retort, “But I of Kephas!” Conservative Jewish believers, when conflict was afoot, rallied to the name of the preacher of Pentecost and the hero of the Church's earliest victories. The use of Κηφᾶς, the Aramaic original of Πέτρος, indicates that this party affected Palestinian traditions. Some of them may, possibly, have been Peter's converts in Judæa. Had Peter visited Cor [154], as Dionysius of Cor [155] supposed (Euseb., Hist. Eccles., ii. 125: Weiss and Harnack favour the tradition), the event would surely have left some trace in these Epp. Judging from the tenor of the two Letters, this faction was of small account in Cor [156] until the arrival of the Judæan emissaries denounced in 2 Cor., who found a ground of vantage ready in those that shouted “I am of Kephas”. In both Epp. P. avoids every appearance of conflict with Peter (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:5; 1 Corinthians 15:5). (4) The Christ party forms the crux of the passage: (a) After F. C. Baur, οἱ Χριστοῦ has been commonly interpreted by 2 Corinthians 10:7 : “If any one is confident on his own part that he is Christ's (Χριστοῦ εἶναι), let him take this into account with himself, that just as he is Christ's, so also are we”. Now P.'s opponents of 2 Cor. were ultra-Judaists; so, it is inferred, these οἱ Χριστοῦ must have been. But the Judaisers of 2 Cor. presumed to be “of Christ” as His ministers, apostles (1 Corinthians 11:13; 1 Corinthians 11:23), deriving their commission (as they maintained P. did not) from the fountain-head; whereas the Christ-party of this place plumed themselves, at most, on being His disciples (rather than P.'s, etc.): the coincidence is verbal rather than real. Upon Baur's theory, there were two parties at Cor [157], as everywhere else in the Church, diametrically opposed a Gentile-Christian party, divided here into Pauline and Apollonian sections, and a Jewish-Christian party naming itself from Kephas or Christ as occasion served. Later scholars following Baur's line of interpretation, distinguish variously the Petrine and Christine Judaists: ([158]) Weizsäcker associates the latter with James; ([159]) Reuss and Beyschlag see in them strict followers of the example and maxims of Jesus as the διάκονος περιτομῆς, from which Peter in certain respects deviated; (γ) Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Hausrath, Sm [160], think they had been in personal relations with Jesus (it is quite possible that amongst the “five hundred” of 1 Corinthians 15:5 some had wandered to Cor [161]); (δ) Gd [162] strangely conjectures that “they were Gnostics before Gnosticism, who formulated their title οἱ Χριστοῦ, after the fashion of Cerinthus, in opp [163] not merely to the names of the apostles, but even to that of Jesus! ” He identifies them with the men who cried “Jesus is anathema” (1 Corinthians 12:2 : see note). This notion is an anachronism, and has no real basis in the Epp.

[146] F. Godet's Commentaire sur la prem. Ép. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[147] ad locum, on this passage.

[148] Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[149] C. F. G. Heinrici's Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer's krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[150] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[151] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[152] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[153] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[154] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[155] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[156] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[157] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[158] A(ntiochena), in Blass, a fair rough copy of St. Luke.

[159] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.

[160] P. Schmiedel, in Handcommentar zum N.T. (1893).

[161] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[162] F. Godet's Commentaire sur la prem. Ép. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[163] opposite, opposition.

( b) 1 Corinthians 3:22 f. (see notes, ad loc [164]) supplies a nearer and safer clue to the interpretation; this is the Apostle's decisive correction of the rivalries of 1 Corinthians 1:12. The human leaders pitted against each other all belong to the Church (not this teacher or that to this section or that), while it belongs without distinction to Christ, and Christ, with all that is His, to God. The catholic Ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ swallows up the self-assertive and sectarian Ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ. Those who used this cry arrogated the common watchword as their peculium; they erred by despising, as others by glorying in men. “ Ἐγὼ Χριστοῦ ad eos pertinet qui in contrariam partem peccabant; i.e., qui sese unius Christi ita dicebant, ut interim iis per quos quos Deus loquitur nihil tribuerent” (Bz [165]); similarly Aug [166], Bg [167], Mr [168], Hf [169], El [170], Bt [171]

[164] ad locum, on this passage.

[165] Beza's Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).

[166] Augustine.

[167] Bengel's Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[168] Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[169] J. C. K. von Hofmann's Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht, ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).

[170] C. J. Ellicott's St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians.

[171] J. A. Beet's St. Paul's Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).

( c) The Gr [172] Ff [173], followed by Cv [174], Bleek, Pfleiderer, Râbiger, and others, saw in the Ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ the true formula which P. approves, or even which he utters propriâ personâ. But the context subjects all four classes to the same reproach. It is a sufficient condemnation for the fourth party that they said “I am of Christ,” in rejoinder to the partisans of Paul and the rest, lowering His name to this competition.

[172] Greek, or Grotius' Annotationes in N.T.

[173] Fathers.

[174] Calvin's In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii.

( d) Hn [175], finding the riddle of the “Christus-partei” insoluble, eliminates it from the text; “we are driven,” he says, “to explain the Ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ as a gloss, which some reader of the original codex inscribed in the margin, borrowing it from 1 Corinthians 3:23 as a counter-confession to the Ἐγὼ μὲν Παύλου κ. τ. λ.”

[175] C. F. G. Heinrici's Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer's krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).