My thoughts on 1 Corinthians 11.23-28 (for Kunigunde).

[Ben C. Smith]

This new thread is the response I promised to Kunigunde: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2019&start=100#p58950.

1 Corinthians 11.17-34 reads:

17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together in church, I hear that schisms exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become manifest among you. 20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lordly Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What!? Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “[Take, eat;] this is My body, which is [broken/given] for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, therefore, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

29 For he who eats and drinks [unworthily], eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body [of the Lord] rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.

The proposed interpolation (11.23-28) is in maroon. Words or phrases which are boldfaced and bracketed [] are attested manuscript variants; I take all four of them to be interpolations. There are two in the body of the proposed interpolation (11.23-28) itself, and both appear to be harmonizations to other instances of the words of institution. There are also two in the verse which immediately succeeds the proposed interpolation. Finally, I have underlined both these latter two variants and the words within the proposed interpolation which I think inspired them. More on that below.

The two variants in the words of institution themselves LaParola notes as follows for 1 Corinthians 11.24:

καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

τοῦτό μού] p46 ‭א A B C* D F G 0199 6 33 81* 104 181* 218 424c 425 618 1175 1241 1739 1881 1906 1912 1962 2127 2200 2464 l599 itar itb itd itf itg ito vgww vgst syrpal copsa copbo geo1 Cyprian Ambrosiaster Pelagius Cyril Euthalius Nestorius Theodoret John-Damascus WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτό μού] (see Matthew 26:26) C3 K L P Ψ 0150 81c 256 263 365 424* 436 459 1319 1573 1852 1912 Byz Lect vgcl syrp syrh goth arm eth geo2 slav Basil Cyril-Jerusalemdub Chrysostom ς ND Dio

ὑμῶν] p46 ‭א* A B C* 6 33 424c 1739* vgst syrpal Origen Cyprian Athanasiusaccording to Theodoret Pelagius (Cyril) Theodoret1/3 Fulgentius WH CEI Nv NM
ὑμῶν κλώμενον] ‭א2 C3 D2 F G K L P Ψ 0150 81 88 104 181 256 (263 l591 l597 l809 l1154 lAD ἡμῶν) 326 330 365 424* 436 451 459 614 629 1175 1241 1319 1573 1739c 1852 1877 1881 1912 1962 1984 1985 2127 2200 2464 2492 2495 Byz Lect itb itd ite itf(c) itg syrp syrh goth (arm) geo slav Ambrosiaster Basil Chrysostom Euthalius Nestorius Theodoret1/3 John-Damascus ς ND Dio
ὑμῶν θρυπτόμενον] D* Theodoret1/3
ὑμῶν διδόμενον] (see Luke 22:19) (itar quod tradidi pro vobis) itc itdem itf* ito itt itx itz(c) (itz* quod pro bovis traditur) vgcl vgww copsa copbo eth Euthalius NR Riv TILC

These variants are not directly related to the argument at hand, but I wanted to demonstrate how cross-fertilization between gospel and epistolary manuscripts can happen.

So, now, on to my reasons for suspecting 1 Corinthians 11.23-28 as an interpolation.

1. One can cleanly remove the verses in question without missing them in context.

Obviously this is not a positive argument yet for the interpolation, but (A) it is a necessary requisite and (B) there is more to the observation. As spin observes (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2019#p44632):

Verses 23-27 add nothing to the discourse and do not follow from the context. It has only the most generic lexical hook onto what precedes it, ie "for" (γαρ), and nothing really to hang it on. And there is nothing made of verses 23-27 in what now follows, no development from anything in the verses. The best that can be said is that it deals with a meal of sorts.

The question is: how does the recounting of the Lord's Supper in 11.23-28 (notice that I include verse 28 in the interpolation, unlike spin, but this difference is slender in the long run) impact Paul's argument in favor of everybody eating the supper together? I used to follow Crossan on this, thinking that the specification that the cup was taken "after supper" was important in persuading the Corinthians that a communal meal with equal participation by all was the mandate; trouble is, that is a very subtle argument, and Paul (or his interpolator) nowhere makes it plain to the Corinthians. Instead, the only payload that the Last Supper account seems designed to deliver is the bit about eating and drinking "unworthily" in verses 27-29: the thought seems to be that, if the Lord instituted it, it must be important not to screw it up by partaking in an unworthy manner. But, if that is the payload, then why the full recounting of the pericope, replete with details completely unnecessary to the main point? (This will come up again, but in a more pointed manner having to do with Pauline practice, in argument #5 below.) Why not merely remind the Corinthians, in a single line, that their customary eucharistic practice comes from Jesus himself, and thus is important? It simply seems to me that the pericope adds very little if anything to the argument.

2. The order of bread/cup or cup/bread becomes (more) consistent without the verses in question.

The gospels (except Luke minus the interpolation) and Justin Martyr have bread/cup, whereas the Didache, 1 Corinthians 10.15-17, 21, and the original text of Luke have cup/bread. Papias' saying about the millennial kingdom preserved in Against Heresies 5.33.3-4 summarizes the predicted abundance in a similar order: first grapes/vines, then wheat/flour.

Now, there are examples in 1 Corinthians 10-11 of bread/cup (or the equivalent), but I think that they admit of their own explanations. 1 Corinthians 10.3-4, for example, mentions spiritual food before spiritual drink, but that is because the manna comes before the water from a rock in the book of Exodus (chapters 16 and 17). And 1 Corinthians 10.31 has "eat and drink," but that is because, in Greek as in English, "eating and drinking" is more of an expression in its own right than "drinking and eating" (I confirmed this a while ago to my own satisfaction with a few informal searches on the TLG, but let me know if you have a different sense). But, where Paul is describing the dominical supper itself, naming the elements instead of finding their parallels in scripture or leaning on a stock phrase, he places the cup first, before the bread, just as in the Didache: 1 Corinthians 10.16, 21.

3. It is easier to imagine Paul writing 1 Corinthians 10.15-16 if he is not aware of the tradition embedded in the verses in question.

Bernard makes a good point (http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adb):

Just one chapter before the Last Supper description in the epistle, Paul wrote:
1Co10:15-16 "I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. [these words indicate the following intellectual proposition was new for the Corinthians]
Is not the cup of Thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"
How could Paul propose such a concept if he knew Jesus originated the Eucharist and the Christians were already told about it (1Co11:23)?

I can think of ways to reconcile the separate notions that Paul both (A) already knew that Jesus equated the eucharistic elements with his body and blood (and already passed this information on to the Corinthians) and (B) wrote gently about it in chapter 10, in a rhetorical way, rather than confronting the miscreants head-on with the ignored information (as we find in, say, 1 Corinthians 5.9), but those ways of reconciling the two feel a bit squidgy to me. The net, for me, is that 1 Corinthians 10.15-16 sounds too soft to be based on the hard truth, both previously known and previously passed on, of 1 Corinthians 11.23-28.

4. It is not immediately obvious what the term "body" refers to if the verses in question are present.

Our extant text of Paul thrice deals with "the body" in a eucharistic context. First, 1 Corinthians 10.17 has: "Since there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf." This sentiment is similar to how the Didache treats the eucharist, with the bread symbolizing unity. The body here may well be that of Christ, but there is no confusion with other "bodies" in context. Second, the proposed interpolation in 1 Corinthians 11.23-28 equates the bread to the body of the Lord. But third, 1 Corinthians 11.29 immediately speaks of what must be the body of the individual believer; Paul is not suggesting that anybody judge the body of the Lord; rather, he is telling his Corinthians to judge their own bodies, else those bodies will continue to get weak and sick.

I mentioned above that there are two interpolations in verse 29, and it happens that one of them demonstrates this confusion. 1 Corinthians 11.29, according to LaParola:

ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα.

πίνων] p46 ‭א* A B C* 6 33 1739 ito copsa copbo geo Pelagius Hesychiuslat WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
πίνων ἀναξίως] (see 1Corinthians 11:27) ‭א2 C2 D F G K L P Ψ 0150 6 81 88 (104 ἀναξίως after γὰρ) 181 256 263 326 330 365 424 436 451 459 614 (629 πένων) 630 1175 1241 1319 1573 1852 1877 1881 1912 1962 1984 1985 2127 2200 2464 2492 2495 Byz Lect itar itb itd itdem ite itf itg itt itx itz vg syrp syrh syrpal goth arm eth slav Ambrosiaster Athanasius Ephraem Basil Pacian Chrysostom Jerome Augustine (Cyril) Euthalius Theodoret John-Damascus ς ND Dio

σῶμα] p46 ‭א* A B C* 6 33 424c 1739 1881* ito itz vgww vgst syrpal copsa copbo Pelagius Augustine1/2 WH Nv NM
σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου] ‭א2 C3 D F G K L P (Ψ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ) 0150 81 88 104 181 256 263 326 330 424* 436 451 459 614 629 630 1175 1319 1573 1852 1877 1881 1912 1962 1984 1985 2127 2200 2464 2492 2495 Byz Lect itar itb itd itdem ite itf itg itgig itt itx vgcl syrp syrh goth arm (eth) geo slav Ambrosiaster Basil Pacian Chrysostom Augustine1/2 (Cyril) Hesychiuslat Euthalius Theodoret John-Damascus ς NR CEI ND Riv Dio TILC
αἷμα τοῦ κυρίου] 1241

That first variant seems fairly innocuous, but the second looks very much to me like a way of fitting the interpolated verses, 23-28, into their current context. Paul was writing about meals and bodies, and the inserted verses were about meals and a body, but the catch was the the body in the inserted verses was that of Christ whereas the bodies to which Paul was referring were those of his readers. A simple gloss fixed this little incompatibility, but made nonsense of what exactly Paul was suggesting people judge.

It is easy to imagine how the big interpolation (of 11.23-28) would leave no traces in the manuscript tradition while the two small interpolations in verse 29 would leave a trace: a scribe could scarcely fail to notice the eucharistic passage absent from one manuscript before him but present in another (or in a marginal note), but, once s/he had remedied the lack of the big passage, might easily assume that the work was done and continue copying, forgetting the small glosses in verse 29 from the other manuscript (or from other marginal notes).

5. The formula involving receiving and delivering in the verses in question resembles the formula in 1 Corinthians 15.3, and both seem suspicious to me.

The formulae are:

11.23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you....
15.3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received....

What strikes me here is that Paul is, according to these formulae, restating something (both times) which he has already delivered to the Corinthians, and restating it in full. When he elsewhere refers to information previously exchanged with the Corinthians, he does so in brief, does he not? That brief allusion in 1 Corinthians 5.9 to what he had previously written to them, for example, or the "concerning what you wrote" in 7.1, which is so minimal that it is not easy to tell exactly what the Corinthians actually wrote.

One might argue that both 15.3-11 and 11.23-28 are important and foundational enough to quote in full, but, then again, if they are all that, why does Paul so easily assume that the Corinthians no longer have access to them without ever actually accusing them of such carelessness? To the contrary, in 11.2 he refers to stuff that he has delivered to the Corinthians, but he does not specify what that stuff is, presumably because they already (by definition) have it; he instead moves on to newer things (women's hairstyles). Similarly, in Galatians 1.9 he refers to the gospel which the Galatians have received, but he does not spell out the verbatim contents of that gospel; again, they already have it; he instead speaks to its ultimate origins and to its implications. In Philippians 4.9 he speaks of "the things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me," and he tells the Philippians to practice them, but he does not list them again, since they already have them.

It makes more sense to me that later editors added 15.3-11 and 11.23-28 to the text than that Paul reiterated, in full and apparently verbatim, things that he has already passed on to the Corinthians. The additions are perfectly intelligible on that score, since, regardless of what had transpired between Paul and his Corinthians, it was a brute fact (ex hypothesi) that the texts spoke of the eucharist and the resurrection without mentioning the Last Supper or the resurrection appearances: opportunities ripe for making good on the deficits.

As I said somewhere, my current stance on this passage is still pretty new to me. I am not committed to it in any final sense; but I do think that there are things to consider, especially when one thinks about who benefits more from this passage (and from 1 Corinthians 15.3-11): is it the Corinthians themselves, who supposedly already have the information being restated, or is it the later reader, well after Paul and his original readership are off the scene? To my eye, both passages appear to have been included in this epistle pretty much solely for their own sake, without much concern for supporting the argument at hand or enhancing the surrounding context. The vast majority of 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 is never referenced elsewhere in the resurrection argument; nor is 1 Corinthians 11.23-28, which furthermore fits ill into its context so far as the referent for the term "body" is concerned.

In the meantime, may I ask you a question? Are you nervous, on principle, about proposing interpolations in texts with little or no manuscript evidence?

For sure! I really appreciate that - for example - Bart Ehrman makes really strong cases in his argumentations and not only “a few good thoughts”.

I used to feel the same way, and for all I know nothing I have written in this post goes beyond "a few good thoughts" in your estimation. But several pretty hard facts impressed themselves upon me to the effect that I became convinced that my attitude toward the text, the attitude which I think I once had in common with yours, was practically guaranteed to make me miss probable interpolations:

1. There is a gap between our earliest manuscripts and the original autographs.
2. There are deliberate variants among manuscripts which postdate this gap, when the texts were already considered to be authoritative and even canonical; are we to imagine that the manuscripts which existed during this gap were free of such corruptions? Indeed, I think it evident that this is the kind of literature which devoted people naturally added things to.
3. One of the most frequent kinds of variant is the harmonization, a species of which is the addition to one text of material from a parallel passage in another text.
4. This latter species of harmonization would be relatively easy to eventually propagate into most or even all extant manuscripts. I think here, for example, of Victor of Antioch affirming that he personally appended the longer ending of Mark to copies which lacked it.
5. Not all manuscript families or lines of descent which ever existed still survive. The Marcionite versions, for example, are no longer extant.
6. Therefore, there are probably readings which existed in manuscripts predating our earliest extant manuscripts which met their end in dead-end lineages. And there is no rule saying that those readings were never original. And, if they were original, then original readings have been lost.
7. There are serious arguments to be reckoned with to the effect that all extant manuscripts of the epistles of Paul stem from a single edition, one which already combined different epistles into longer single epistles (1 & 2 Corinthians and Philippians, especially). Did the editor of this edition, as well as all the scribes and other editors before him or her, refrain from harmonizing or interpolating? Anything is possible, but not all things are equally probable.

YMMV.

Ben.

[andrewcriddle]

3. It is easier to imagine Paul writing 1 Corinthians 10.15-16 if he is not aware of the tradition embedded in the verses in question.

Bernard makes a good point (http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adb):

Just one chapter before the Last Supper description in the epistle, Paul wrote:
1Co10:15-16 "I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. [these words indicate the following intellectual proposition was new for the Corinthians]
Is not the cup of Thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"
How could Paul propose such a concept if he knew Jesus originated the Eucharist and the Christians were already told about it (1Co11:23)?

I can think of ways to reconcile the separate notions that Paul both (A) already knew that Jesus equated the eucharistic elements with his body and blood (and already passed this information on to the Corinthians) and (B) wrote gently about it in chapter 10, in a rhetorical way, rather than confronting the miscreants head-on with the ignored information (as we find in, say, 1 Corinthians 5.9), but those ways of reconciling the two feel a bit squidgy to me. The net, for me, is that 1 Corinthians 10.15-16 sounds too soft to be based on the hard truth, both previously known and previously passed on, of 1 Corinthians 11.23-28.

I am inclined to see the teaching in 1 Corinthians 10 of the Eucharist as participation KOINWNIA in the body and blood of Christ as a distinctively Pauline development of the Institution narrative. Similar to the way Paul develops the implications of the Institution narrative in 1 Corinthians 11:27 onwards.

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

3. It is easier to imagine Paul writing 1 Corinthians 10.15-16 if he is not aware of the tradition embedded in the verses in question.

Bernard makes a good point (http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adb):

Just one chapter before the Last Supper description in the epistle, Paul wrote:
1Co10:15-16 "I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. [these words indicate the following intellectual proposition was new for the Corinthians]
Is not the cup of Thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"
How could Paul propose such a concept if he knew Jesus originated the Eucharist and the Christians were already told about it (1Co11:23)?

I can think of ways to reconcile the separate notions that Paul both (A) already knew that Jesus equated the eucharistic elements with his body and blood (and already passed this information on to the Corinthians) and (B) wrote gently about it in chapter 10, in a rhetorical way, rather than confronting the miscreants head-on with the ignored information (as we find in, say, 1 Corinthians 5.9), but those ways of reconciling the two feel a bit squidgy to me. The net, for me, is that 1 Corinthians 10.15-16 sounds too soft to be based on the hard truth, both previously known and previously passed on, of 1 Corinthians 11.23-28.

I am inclined to see the teaching in 1 Corinthians 10 of the Eucharist as participation KOINWNIA in the body and blood of Christ as a distinctively Pauline development of the Institution narrative.

Elsewhere I agreed (with Kunigunde) that Paul may very well be the source for the eucharistic body-and-blood symbolism (as found in 1 Corinthians 10.16), layering it over what was originally something similar to what we find in the Didache.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
Thanks for your long and very careful answer. Lots of points. With special interest I have read reason 4.

[Ben C. Smith]

Thanks for your long and very careful answer. Lots of points. With special interest I have read reason 4.

No problem. And, of course, #4 is the one with the juicy textual variant to chew on.

[andrewcriddle]

Hi Ben

Do you regard the parallel in Luke 22 as original to Luke or also probably an interpolation ?

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi Ben

Do you regard the parallel in Luke 22 as original to Luke or also probably an interpolation ?

Andrew Criddle

I think Luke 22.19b-20 is most likely an interpolation, if that is what you mean by the parallel in Luke 22.

[andrewcriddle]

Hi Ben

Do you regard the parallel in Luke 22 as original to Luke or also probably an interpolation ?

Andrew Criddle

I think Luke 22.19b-20 is most likely an interpolation, if that is what you mean by the parallel in Luke 22.

That is what I meant.
I should have been clearer sorry.

Andrew Criddle

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

YMMV.

Ben.

I understand now better why you think that it is an interpolation and I agree with many observations. I do not wish to discuss your reasons. The following are only a few personal thoughts about 1 Cor 11:17-34.


1) There is some irony, while thinking about your reasons and all arguments by spin, Bernard, Peter, Joe and others. I think that I didn’t miss a point and there were really interesting arguments. But to me the biggest problem is the question: Could it be possible, that Paul wrote such a little “Gospel”-story? This may be not very scholarly-like, but nothing impressed me more than my personal doubts about this. Therefore I asked you about this.


2) My problem is a bit that 1 Cor 11:17-34 is, in the first sense (in my impression), not a text about texts and ideas (Mark), but also about a concrete historical situation and that I have no clue about it. spin wrote

Coming to 1 Cor 11:17-34a, Paul is faced with a problem involving a feast he has set up at Corinth, his "lordly feast" (note: not "lord's" anything, for the word is an adjective). This is plainly not a ritual or sacrament such as the one the last supper initiated, but a communal meal, similar to, though less formal than, the communal meal found at Qumran. Such a meal in its turn is probably influenced by shared meals in hellenistic associations—for Paul's community is such an association of brothers.

It seems to me that there are a few assumptions. I think we “know” that it was a “real” meal with eating and drinking, but we can’t say that it was not more than this meal, nor that it was in fact more than this.
Was there a special section with wine and bread, singing of hymns, reading of scriptures? Was there rather a public or a private conversation or both? Where did the food and drink came from? From the riches?
And what religious importance did this meal have - in Pauline theory and in the theory of the Corinthians and in their practise?

To understand 1 Cor 11:17-34 it may be necessary to know a bit more about this all. For example, Paul’s “for in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal” must not, but could have a sarcastic overtone.


3) spin has made some good arguments and a fine chiasm, but our understanding of 1 Cor 11:17-22,29-34 is different in at least one major point. I exaggerate to make it clear: In spin’s view Paul is talking about table manners, but my impression is that Paul has in mind his theological conceptions of a Christian community.

I used to follow Crossan on this, thinking that the specification that the cup was taken "after supper" was important in persuading the Corinthians that a communal meal with equal participation by all was the mandate; trouble is, that is a very subtle argument, and Paul (or his interpolator) nowhere makes it plain to the Corinthians.

I clearly agree on this. This Pauline credo “One Lord, one community, all members different, but all equal” is repeated many times and in different contexts in 1 Corinthians and I do not think that there is only this “subtle argument”. spin also mentioned it

Paul's problem regards the fact that people aren't participating as a community of brothers, but every "man" for himself. If you get there early, you can stuff yourself and so others who come later miss out on the meal entirely, as there is nothing left. This naturally is completely against Paul's notion of community.

3.1) My impression is that in the assumed non-interpolated text 1 Cor 11:17-22,29-34 are two important themes. The second theme is judgment. spin marked it yellow.

A	17 Now in this instruction I do not praise [you] that when you come together, it is not for the better but for the worse.	33 Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your coming together will not bring judgment (krima).
B	18 Firstly, when you come together in assembly I hear that there are divisions (schismata) among you, and I partly believe it 19 for there must be factions (aireseis) among you to make the approved (dokimoi = tested) among you manifest!	31 But if we judged (diekrinomen) ourselves, we would not be judged (ekrinomeQa). 32 Now, being judged (krinomenoi) by the Lord, we are being disciplined (as with children) so we won’t be condemned with the world.
C	20 When you come together in one place, it is not to eat the lordly feast (kuriakon deipnon), 21 for as you eat, each of you rushes to eat his own feast, and one person goes hungry while another gets drunk.	30 That’s why so many of you are weak and lack strength and an ample number are fallen asleep (dying?).
D	22 You have homes in which to eat and drink, don’t you? Or do you despise God’s church and humiliate those who have nothing?	29 because whoever eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment (krima) on himself, not judging (diakrinwn) the body [of the Lord].
E	What should I say to you?	28 A person must examine (dokimazetw = test) himself and in this way eat the bread and drink from the cup,
F	Should I praise you?	(22) I will not praise you for this!

The first theme is “when you come together”. The verb “coming together” (συνέρχομαι - sunerchomai) occurs only 30 times in the whole NT, but 5 times in 1 Cor 11:17-22,29-34.

17 I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.
18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you.
20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.
33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—
34 so that when you come together it will not be for judgment

I think this is Paul’s perspective of arguing. Not the table manners, but that they bring judgment on themselves when they come together. The meal is only one subcase of this problem.


3.2) Paul mentioned two subcases.

the schisms	the problems of the meal
18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.	20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?

What have the theological schisms in Corinth to do with the problems of the meal? IMHO nothing, except that the Corinthians are in both subcases not one community. In the former there are these theological schisms, in the latter is a gap between those riches (those who have houses) and the humiliated poors (those who have nothing). Paul announced the judgment also to the whole community and not only to “those riches”. In 11:30 is no criticism against individuals, but a reminder for all.

30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

I think that Paul’s perspective of arguing and also his criticism stress the point that the Corinthians must come to the conclusion that they are one community and that there is no other way (because of the judgment).


4)

4. It is not immediately obvious what the term "body" refers to if the verses in question are present.

Our extant text of Paul thrice deals with "the body" in a eucharistic context. First, 1 Corinthians 10.17 has: "Since there is one loaf, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one loaf." This sentiment is similar to how the Didache treats the eucharist, with the bread symbolizing unity. The body here may well be that of Christ, but there is no confusion with other "bodies" in context. Second, the proposed interpolation in 1 Corinthians 11.23-28 equates the bread to the body of the Lord. But third, 1 Corinthians 11.29 immediately speaks of what must be the body of the individual believer; Paul is not suggesting that anybody judge the body of the Lord; rather, he is telling his Corinthians to judge their own bodies, else those bodies will continue to get weak and sick..

I clearly agree, but I think that in all scenarios the term “body” is not clear, also the verb “judge” in this context and at the end the whole sentence. Ben mentioned all possibilities. “body” can mean

- the body of Christ
- the whole community
- the body of the individual believer

The further problem is that “the body of Christ” is in some cases also a metaphor for the “the whole community” – 1 Cor 12:27.

26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. 27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

spin and Ben prefer the third possibility, the interpolator of “Lord” in 11:29 the first.

By examining oneself one will recognize if they are hungry or not. One's own body will tell them, hence the comment about judging the body. If you don't make this examination of your physical state ...

I do not think that there is anything wrong with spin’s and Ben’s understanding, but I prefer the second possibility. The following is not an argument against spin and Ben. I’m only happy that at least one scholar seems to agree with me, but I’m sure that other scholars agree with spin and Ben.
Kei Eun Chang, The Community, the Individual and the Common Good

The resultant divisions (σχίσματα) include the failure to discern the notion of the body, that is, as members who care for one another (cf. μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα, 11:29).

Therefore I think that the sense of verse 29 is that one must be aware of the whole community and think of oneself not as an individual, but as a member and take part in this manner. I prefer this understanding not only because of the assumed context, but also because of verse 34. The addressees are again the whole community and not only the “sinners”.

34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment.

5) Is it not a bit surprising that the theme of judgment in 1 Cor 11:17-22,29-34 is relative strong? Apart from our differences in the understanding of 1 Cor 11:17-22,29-34, my impression is that Paul’s repeated sayings about judgment seem to be at first glance not only a bit exaggerated. I surmise that Andrew Criddle also drew attention to this point.

Similar to the way Paul develops the implications of the Institution narrative in 1 Corinthians 11:27 onwards.

Why is there this relative strong theme of judgment? And which logic is in Paul’s reasoning?

My impression is that the assumed non-interpolated text 1 Cor 11:17-22,29-34 could lack a good sense. If I compare spin’s explanation for the judgment and Ben’s with the Last Supper, does the assumed interpolated text not makes a better sense for the judgment-theme?

By examining oneself one will recognize if they are hungry or not. One's own body will tell them, hence the comment about judging the body. If you don't make this examination of your physical state when you eat and drink the lordly feast, you are liable to bring judgment on yourself.

Instead, the only payload that the Last Supper account seems designed to deliver is the bit about eating and drinking "unworthily" in verses 27-29: the thought seems to be that, if the Lord instituted it, it must be important not to screw it up by partaking in an unworthy manner.

I think there are two or three further points in the assumed interpolated text which could make the judgment at least more logically.


6) As I said, it is also a personal question to me: Could it be possible, that Paul wrote such a little “Gospel”-story?

Few of us may know, that I sometimes trust more in things which are not really well-reasoned and intelligible arguments. For example, what I personally feel as “the voice of the author” and such things. My consideration under point 5) could be more or less correct, but it did not convince me. It was verse 26.

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

My question was: Is it easier to believe that Paul could have wrote a little “Gospel”-story or an interpolator this wonderful mystical axiom?

[Ben C. Smith]

Thanks for the response, Kunigunde. I am still thinking through a lot of what you wrote, but let me quickly address two points. First:

What have the theological schisms in Corinth to do with the problems of the meal? IMHO nothing, except that the Corinthians are in both subcases not one community.

....

In the former there are these theological schisms, in the latter is a gap between those riches (those who have houses) and the humiliated poors (those who have nothing).

Do the schisms of verse 18 have to be theological? Can they not be precisely the division between rich and poor that you point out above?

11.18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that schisms exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become manifest among you. 20 Therefore [οὖν] when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lordly Supper, 21 for [γὰρ] in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.

Second:

Is it not a bit surprising that the theme of judgment in 1 Cor 11:17-22,29-34 is relative strong? Apart from our differences in the understanding of 1 Cor 11:17-22,29-34, my impression is that Paul’s repeated sayings about judgment seem to be at first glance not only a bit exaggerated. I surmise that Andrew Criddle also drew attention to this point.

Similar to the way Paul develops the implications of the Institution narrative in 1 Corinthians 11:27 onwards.

Why is there this relative strong theme of judgment?

To my mind, since the issue is the division between rich and poor that has developed (mainly) because the rich are not acting in the spirit of koinonia, Paul's emphasis on judgment is hearkening back to a hoary Jewish tradition of proclaiming judgment upon the rich for their treatment of the poor. Case in point:

Isaiah 3.14: The Lord enters into judgment with the elders and princes of His people, "It is you who have devoured the vineyard; The plunder of the poor is in your houses."

I find similar motifs in the epistle of James, as well:

2.1 My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. 2 For if a man comes into your assembly with a gold ring and dressed in fine clothes, and there also comes in a poor man in dirty clothes, 3 and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil motives? .... 8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. .... 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.

4.11 Do not speak against one another, brethren. He who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks against the law and judges the law; but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge of it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

5.1 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. 2 Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. 3 Your gold and your silver have rusted; and their rust will be a witness against you and will consume your flesh like fire. It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure! 4 Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and which has been withheld by you, cries out against you; and the outcry of those who did the harvesting has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.

Could such considerations be the reasons for Paul's talk of judgment upon those who would, at least in a de facto sort of way, divide the church between rich and poor? Or have I misunderstood your question/comment?

To speak for myself here, the passage without the proposed interpolation puts me in mind precisely of those sorts of Jewish concerns for the poor at the hand of the rich. But, as soon as I mentally reinsert the Last Supper and read the passage with it, the judgment takes on a different quality, one having less to do with social behavior than with ritualistic purity or the like (participating in the rite in an unworthy way). Not that both concerns cannot be true and cannot be native to Paul's horror at the Corinthian behavior, but they do seem to be rather different kinds of concerns.

Ben.