Church of Corinth, How Do We Know Their Culture

Corinth was (and to some extent remains today) as one of the larger port cities of Greece. It was and is located at the point where a long embayment from the west ends at a narrow isthmus connecting the Peloponessus peninsula wth the rest of mainland Greece. For the last 120 years, there's been a canal acropss that isthmus, but in Paul's day it was necessary to move goods by ship to Corinth and then across the isthmus by land transport (unless one sailed around the Peloponessus, apparently a longer and frequently stormy voyage than doing the transshipment across the isthmus).

So there was more than a little evil reputation attached to the city, and secular texts refer extensively to it. In particular, like many another port, it had a thriving trade in "houses of ill repute" and related phenomena. Much of what Paul says to the church in Corinth needs to be read in the context that he was addressing a church in a major port city with all the vices endemic to such places.

I don't have ready references to the secular texts, but they're referred to in any good commentary on the letters to the Corinthians, and can be looked up from those references.

More specifically to your question about the condition of the church of Corinth: yes, history of Corinth was recorded during that time. Here's a little background of what Paul was talking about :

First thing, the town of Corinth was morally corrupt. They practiced wicked games such as the Olympian games where warriors would basically murder one another in front of a crowd. The city was a pagan city. Sadly, incest was one of the churches greatest sins (5:1). The Corinthian chuch was tolerating worldliness and many church members practiced their pagan ways.

But more specifically to your interest in the women and the hair, the Corinthian city was undergoing a feminist rebellion. Women within the city would act as men, running around barebreasted, carrying spears and killing pigs (apparently, the men did such things in this time), and they shaved their heads. Paul here was talking that a woman should act and look as a woman, and that's the explination to the reference to women's hair.

Oh yes, and the Corinthian church had become divided and confused. When the people would gather, more than one teacher would stand up to teach, and everyone would say what he wanted to say. Confused and noisey speach does not edify a christian, so Paul was telling them to calm down and teach like civilized students. In this, he permitted not the women to speak to help further silence the confusion since women are not permitted to teach over a man in the first place (1 Tim. 2:12).

However, that's the end of my knowledge on Corinth. But yes, the history was recorded, and by that and scripture, Bible scalors have sketched out the history of the age of Paul.

love4god said:

It makes sense to me and I would like to believe that is why some of the verses about women are in there but I also want to be true to the Bible no matter what it says. Whenever we read about covering of heads, braided hair, women not speaking in church we are told... well you have to know the culture.

Click to expand...

Also, in regard to women being admonished about talking in church: they were not taught the Hebrew language (only men were)-the language of the original scriptures--so they did not pay attention, and instead would "gossip" with each other. This was, of course, very disruptive.

Blessings!

love4god said:

Whenever any discussion of 1 Corinthians chapter 11, and several other sections of 1 & 2 Corinthians, comes up it is immediately reasoned that we have to understand the Corinthian culture.

It makes sense to me and I would like to believe that is why some of the verses about women are in there but I also want to be true to the Bible no matter what it says. Whenever we read about covering of heads, braided hair, women not speaking in church we are told... well you have to know the culture.

My question is, how do we know it? Was this all assumed or hypothized to rationalize tough scriptures? Or is there some recorded history that speaks of this culture at this time.

This question has always nagged me a little bit. I like to take things literally and when I can't I want a good reason why.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Great question!

Think of it this way. Let's say you and I were close friends for many years. Let's assume that I knew you well and because we were both mutually aware of your strengths and weaknesses, family problems, etc, I would be able to converse with you in a manner that reflected our relationship.

For example: I write a letter to you that says, "You really shouldn't have bailed your brother out of jail." I write this based on the premise that your brother is...let's say he's a sex offender that seeks out young girls, and has no remorse for doing so.

When you read the letter, you know the reason for making my statement. But if this letter was found by someone 1000's of years later, they would look at the letter and probably come to a radically different conclusion. They might conclude that I'm cold-hearted or insensitive. The only way that they would be able to understand the intended meaning behind my statement is to historically analyze what was taking place at the time I wrote the letter. They would have to examine the history behind the document they found.

Such is the case with God's Word. It can never mean something to us that it did not mean to the original recipients. So we must find out what its original meaning was before we understand what it is suipposed to say to us today. Taking it literally without setting the historical, chronological, geographical, linguistic and general context is a formula for missing what God has to say to us. Otherwise we may only stumble upon the truth of what's being said on occasion.

It's interesting that you started this thread. I was discussing a matter regarding Corinth's history and how it applied to the subject at hand. Unfortunately, no one seemed to see the value in considering the history in drawing a conclusion about the context.