St. Paul's Corintiuan experiences seem to have directed his attention to the central importance of the Church in Rome and to the attitude of the Im- perial government to Christian missions. (1) His host and hostess, having lately coine from Italy, were able to give him vivid first-hand intelligence regarding the world-city, which from this time certainly loomed large on his mental horizon : he 'must see Rome' (Ac I921 ; cf. Ro 1" \^-*). (2) His Corinthian trial, at the instance of jealous Jews, before the proconsul Gallio, the large-minded and tolerant brother of Seneca, on the charge of worshipping God ' contrary to the law,' a trial ending in his speedy and triumphant acquittal, aot only made it clear to him that Christianity was a religio licita, which might be preached in my part of the Empire, but evidently confirmed ais idea that the Imperial government might be regarded as a restraining power (1 Th 2''), which would give protection to law-abiding Christians, aspecially to Roman citizens, engaged in the peace- ful work of evangelization.
In Corinth St. Paul initiated a form of mission- ary activity which proved immensely beneficial to all the churches — the writing of letters. From Corinth he dispatched 1 and 2 Thess., Rom., and possibly Gal. ; and to Corinth he sent not only the two canonical Epistles which have come down to us, but apparently two others — referred to in 1 Co 5^, 2 Co 2'' 7^ — one of which may be fragmentarily preserved in 2 Co 6^^-7', while the other is per- haps to be found, in whole or in part, in 2 Co 10-13.
It was in the Church of Corinth, with its numer- ous types of converts and its astonishing variety of gifts (1 Co 1*-'' 12*-i<'), that the first ecclesiastical divisions (o-x^cAtaTa, 1 Co 1^" 11'® 12-') took place, with an accompanying hero-worship which de- tracted from the reverence due to Christ alone (1 Co 1'°''^). For the party-strife, so characteristic of the democracy of Greek cities, in which persons were put before principles, the thiee leaders who, without being consulted, were set up as heads of rival factions, were in no way to blame. St. Peter probaljly never visited Corinth at all. A polios laboured for a time in this city, and achieved much success among the Jews (Ac 18-^), but nothing could have been finer than the mutual loyalty of St. Paul and Apolios (1 Co 3« 4« 16'-). Ci. also following article.
The Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Cor- inthians was written about A.D. 97. While com- mending their general tone and spirit, it contains an exliortation to concord among the memljers of the Church, which was still vexed by divisions. See art. Clement of Rome, Epistle of.
LiTERATURB.— E. Cuftius, Pcloponnesos, Gotha, 1851-2 ; W- G. Clark, Peloponnesug, London, 1858 ; E. Wilisch, Geschichte
Corinths, Leipzig, 1887, 1896, 1901 ; Pausanias, Description of Greece, ed. J. G. Frazer, London, 1898, iii. 20-38 ; Baedeker, Greece, do. 1889, s.v. 'Corinth'; art. 'Corinthus' in Smith, DGMG i. [1856] 674. JaMES STRAHAN.
CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE.— 1. Au
thenticity. — It is generally agreed that both these Epistles are rightly ascribed to St. Paul. As to 1 ( 'or. the external evidence is remarkably strong. Clement of Rome directly appeals to it as the work of the ' Apostle Paul ' {ad Cor. xlvii. : dvaXd^ere TTjv iniaroXrjv toD /maKapiov Ilat^Xoi' rov diroaToXov. ri irpGiTov vfup iv dpxv tov evayyeXLov kypa\jy€v ; iir a.\7}delas Trvev/naTLKics iTr^ffreiXei' v/mv Trepl avTov re /cat K7]<pci re /cat ' AttoXXco, 5ta rb Kal t6t€ irpocrKXiaeis v/xas irewoLyjadai). The Epistle was certainly known also to Ignatius and Polycarp (cf. W. R. Inge, in The NT in the Apostolic Fathers, 1905, p. 67 : ' Ignatius must have known this Epistle almost by heart. Although there are no quotations [in the strictest sense, with mention of the source], echoes of its language and thought pervade the whole of his writings in such a manner as to leave no doubt whatever that he was acquainted with the First Epistle to the Corinthians.' P. V. M. Benecke lib. p. 86] is equally sure about Polycarp : ' Poly- carp's use of 1 Corinthians may be regarded as certain '). The internal evidence is equally strong. The Ejiistle gives an extremely graphic picture of a Christian Church of early date. Much of it is occasional in character. There is nothing to suggest forgery. The attack made on its auth- enticity by Bruno Bauer, and renewed later by Loman, Pierson, Naber, van Manen, Steck, and others, has met with very little acceptance. Attacks have also bc^n made on its integrity by Hagge and Volter, at these also have little to be said for them.
2 Coi'. appears in Marcion's Canon, and is after- wards widely quoted. But there are few traces of it in the Apostolic Fathers. Clement makes no allusion to it, though it would have suited his purpose to do so. It seems probable that it was not published until the churches began to look upon St. Paul's letters as Scripture. It is in the main personal, and contains but little moral or doctrinal instruction. It is, therefore, quite in- telligible that it should not have been published as early as 1 Cor.,* which would be at once recognized as a document of universal inteiest and great im- portance ; but there is no reason to doubt its Pauline authorship, in spite of the inferiority of the external evidence for it. Irenseus, Tertullian, Athenagoras, and Clement of Alexandria are all familiar witli it and quote it freely. And the internal evidence is very strong. Its autobio- graphical touches carry their own assurance of genuineness, and, whUe not in the main doctrinal, ' it is saturated with the characteristic theological conceptions of St. Paul.'t