It’s interesting Paul wants a reconciliation of the various factions in 1 Corinthians, and yet singles out the super apostles in 2 Corinthians as teaching another Christ and another Gospel. One solution may be that the various groups in 1 Corinthians were teaching a post cross-resurrection faith, whereas the super apostles were purists who taught Jesus’s pre-death message. Some scholars have noted hidden beneath the cross/resurrection bias of the gospels we can find an earlier message of Jesus. For example, the message of the cross/resurrection is we are saved by faith in Jesus’s cross and resurrection, whereas by contrast the story of the rich young ruler is we are made right with God by selling our possessions and giving the money to the poor. Similarly, the story sheep and goats is not that we are justified by faith, but by caring for the destitute. Jesus begins Mark by calling for repentance so God can forgive (as in the Lord’s prayer), not that an atoning sin fine must be paid. Finally, it is odd that the disciples were armed and got violent at the arrest if it was thought Jesus was supposed to die. Some scholars argue that some of the followers thought they saw Jesus alive after he died, and so inferred the death wasn’t random, but a salvific sacrifice. This substitutionary atonement theology had nothing to do with the historical Jesus’ message.

One interesting point is Paul’s super apostles in 2 Corinthians are haughty and self-assured, perhaps thinking they followed Christ’s true message from before he dies, and on this issue Paul elsewhere feels need to defend himself since he never met Jesus in life (am I not an apostle / have I not seen Christ?).

If the haughty super apostle who perhaps knew Jesus or his earthly teaching were teaching a post-easter cross/resurrection faith, Paul probably would have just thought them similar to Peter and James and want to reconcile with them as he does in 1 Corinthians. But Paul does not view the super apostles this way in 2 Corinthians. The super apostles’ Jesus is so offensive to Paul he wants nothing to do with them. They teach “another Jesus and another gospel:” presumably meaning their Jesus gospel is not the cross/resurrection gospel.

Unlike the super apostles, we know Peter taught crucifixion resurrection theology from the pre Pauline Corinthian Creed. And, we know Paul was arguing against non salvific cross/resurrection Jesus faith in some of the Corinthian group because he argues against it multiple times, as I said “If Christ is not raised your faith is futile and you are still in you sins” and “If righteousness comes by upholding the law Christ died for nothing.”

Historical-Critical scholarship like Bart Ehrman tends toward the idea the post-easter faith of Peter and Paul contradicts the historical Jesus’s theology. Jesus believed in a God who forgives and wants us to help the destitute. This will get us into the Kingdom. Paul, by contrast thinks God doesn’t just forgive but needs Jesus as an atoning sacrifice, and says salvation is brought by belief – and that if righteousness comes from upholding the law Christ died for nothing. It would make sense if this duality were reflected in Paul.