spin

We have discussed 1 Cor 15:17-34 before, but I thought I would present a reduced version in an effort to capture what seems to me to be what the writer had in mind when he originally wrote the passage.

Paul felt it was necessary to reprimand his Corinthians over their behavior when they partook in the group's communal meal, which Paul calls "the lordly supper" -- kuriakos deipnos. This is usually translated as "the lord's supper" (which would be deipnos tou kuriou), but kuriakos is an adjective (used only twice in the christian scripture), hence "lordly" for want of better representation. This will help to avoid the perhaps undue influence that the phrase "lord's supper" would bring to the text.

Here is the reconstructed text (arrived at through reduction of the current text):

Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear which of you have approval. When you come together, it is not the lordly supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

Is it that I have so mangled the text that I have lost sight of its significance or is this a communal meal of the sort that people adhering to Jewish customs partook in? We find such a communal meal mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls and believers who had become recognized members of the community could partake in the meal, though they could be excluded from it.

Paul's complaint, so far, seems to have nothing to do with the Jesus inaugurated ritual meal, but with how members of Paul's Corinthian community treated each other by not partaking as good responsible members should. It was not an ordinary meal where one could gluttonize or get drunk, but a meal in which all members should be able to partake and not miss out because of the gluttony of some. If one needed to think of one's body one should do that at home.

If this analysis is correct, let's look at the text as it has become:

17 Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear which of you have approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the lordly supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. 33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

The phrase in red is not well supported by the manuscript evidence, so it can be reduced to a footnote as is done in the NRSV. It seems to be a late erroneous attempt at clarifying the significance of "body", shifting from the body of the individual to that of Jesus. It's not the lord's body that the member doesn't discern but his/her own, such that s/he comes to the meal with the wrong attitude and gluttonizes.

The green section is mainly the Lucan presentation of the last supper. Its presence draws attention onto itself and away from Paul's complaint about the poor attitude of his Corinthians when they come to the communal meal.

I'd be interested to know if you think that the text as presented at the beginning is coherent in itself in that it explains itself and the purpose the writer had in mind. Does the material I omitted seem to add to the writer's intention in the passage or not?


spin

Ben C Smith

Minor typo here; this should be 1 Corinthians 11, not 15.

I am wondering what you would make of how Crossan reads this passage; in his view the distinction between during and after supper in the eucharistic heart of the pericope answers the Corinthians practice of not waiting for one another. I wrote on an earlier thread:

Ben.

dog-on

The green text is a nice framing of the "insertion" of a latter defined ritual...

Interpolation, I say!

Vivisector

While I've taken a very skeptical stance toward identifying interpolations where none are indicated in the texts, it seems very obvious to me that the green portion simply does not fit. As I see it, the green refers to the minimal, cup-and-bread eucharist, whereas the remainder refers to an all-out meal. If so, then its inclusion is not supportive of Paul's main point, and it's not even neutral to the point - it distracts from the point.

I'm not sure how common the word "betrayed" is in Paul's letters, either. In fact, I think it's a hapax.

Cheers,

V.

gstafleu

It has, I think, been mentioned on this forum before that neither the central tenet of Christian mythology (God sent his "son" down to earth as a sacrifice-to-be-resurrected) nor the concomitant ritual (the Eucharist) can easily be extracted from Jewish mythology. Hence it most likely is an addition Christianity made to the Jewish mythology, and, if we are lucky, we can expect to find traces of this in the early literature.

The piece you restated may well be such a piece. It may have started out as just a communal meal (which the Jews certainly had), and the Eucharistic aspects may well have been added later. In any case, you are on solid mythological ground when it comes to positing the existence of such a development.

It should be pointed out, BTW, that the Eucharist is not a communal meal. A communal meal serves to get oneself stuffed in a community-reinforcing fashion, and Paul's irate comments about the "haves" stuffing themselves first and/or not leaving anything for the have-nots fit this rather well. The Eucharist on the other hand serves to reaffirm certain (central) aspects of the mythology in a here-and-now fashion, and is comparable to a meal only in that some eating occurs: not the (communal) stuffing but rather the mythology is central.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

It is not a hapax, though the translation as betrayed may well be for the Pauline writings. The word is simply παραδιδωμι, which appears elsewhere in Paul. It means to deliver, hand over, deliver up, betray, turn in, and so forth. In this case it could mean Judas betraying Jesus, or it could mean Jesus being turned over from party to party, or it could mean God delivering Jesus up for mankind.

Ben.

Vivisector

Thanks, Ben - you're right. Without my lexicon, I could (easily) search only the instances of English translation into "betrayed" as per the NIV. I see now that the Greek word appears elsewhere in Paul's letters, though I wonder about its use.

Do you consider the way the word is apparently used in this verse (betrayed) to be unique to the seven "uncontested" letters of Paul?

Cheers,

V.

Ben C Smith

Yes, I do.

That does not, however, in and of itself mean that it cannot mean betrayed in this context; that is not how language works.

But I myself have usually preferred the option that here it means God delivering Jesus over to death. The advantage to this view is that (A) we find Paul using the word with this precise meaning elsewhere, as in Romans 8.32, and (B) Paul may not know about one of the twelve being a betrayer, since he says that Jesus appeared to the 12 in 1 Corinthians 15.5.

But also worth considering is the idea that the verb is imperfect here in 1 Corinthians 11.23 because it covers a process of handing over: Jesus in the gospels is handed over to the arresting party, then to the Jewish authorities, then to Pilate, then to the crucifixion party.

Ben.

Vivisector

It sounds (please clarify if I'm mistaken) that you think there is a more appropriate translation (e.g., "handed over" or "delivered") than "betrayed" in this context. Is this fair?

It almost seems another of those chicken-and-egg propositions. If one considers the passage authentic, then "handed over" makes much sense. If one takes the word as "betrayed," then it seems (to me) to argue against authenticity.

Cheers,

V.

Ben C Smith

Yes. I prefer delivered up or such.

I myself would not go this far. I would say that, if betrayed is the best translation and if the passage is genuine, then this is evidence that Paul knew of Judas (or something similar); that is, I would not shrink from such a conclusion if the evidence led me there. Since, however, I dispute the first element (but probably would not dispute the second), the conclusion does not follow for me anyway. And, in fact, I am quite uncertain whether accept the Judas story as history.

Ben.