it (Hall 2003). The next question, therefore, is to ask when Paul might have written the letter. While there is considerable debate about the place of the letter within various reconstructions of Paul’s life and travels (Hurd 1965, pp. 3–42), the dating of 1 Corinthians appears to be uncontroversial. It is dated at about 53–55 ce, following Paul’s first visit to Corinth, where he founded a Christian community, and before any second visit that may have taken place (Fee 1987, p. 15).
The next series of questions relate to the reasons why Paul might have written this letter, and the kind of issues that he is addressing within it. Any reading of the letter will show that it ranges over a series of essentially random concerns that appear to have no common thread. Scholars have attempted to discover a thread, or to demonstrate one or more underlying themes to the letter as a whole. Mitchell, for example, argues that the central theme is reconciliation and that Paul’s dominant purpose in writing the letter was to persuade the community to become united (Mitchell 1992). Despite Mitchell’s attempts to match the letter to the features of classical rhetoric this analysis does not provide an adequate explanation for the structure of the text. More profitable are those analyses that begin with the hints offered within the letter that it was written as a response to a series of questions that have come to Paul from the Corinthian community.
One of the most interesting of these is still Hurd’s 1965 study, The Origin of 1 Corinthians. Hurd aims to reconstruct the dialogue that occurred between Paul and the Corinthian community from Paul’s first visit through to the writing of the letter. Hurd sees 1 Corinthians as being constructed out of Paul’s responses to three different kinds of communication from the Corinthians (Hurd 1965, pp. 48–9). First, there is a letter that is mentioned in 7.1. Second, it is clear that Paul has had some personal communication from people associated with Chloe (1.11). Finally, towards the end of the letter, there is mention of Stephanas, Forunatus and Achaicus who had recently arrived from Corinth (16.17). From this Hurd demonstrates that there are two types of material within the letter: that which is written in response to the letter from Corinth, and that which is written in response to personal communications. He goes on to note that this distinction is reflected in Paul’s level of emotional response to the issues covered, with Paul being more detached in his discussion of the material from the letter and more forthright and emotional in his response to material from personal communication (Hurd 1965, pp. 62–3). Finally, this enables Hurd to identify those passages that begin with the words ‘now concerning (περί δέ)’ (7.1; 7.25; 8.1; 12.1; 16.1; 16.12) as responses to the letter (Hurd 1965, p. 63). If this is followed through, then the first section of the letter (chapters 1––6) is largely a response to verbal communication (with the possible exception of 5.9–13a), and the second section (chapters 7––16) is largely a response to issues raised in the letter, with the notable exception of 11.17–34 (Hurd 1965, p. 93).
It is precisely 11.17–34 that is of concern. The discussion of the meal derives, according to the text (11.18), from what Paul has heard from personal communication. Hurd argues that the section is placed here because, like the rest of chapters 11––14, it deals with the issue of worship (Hurd 1965, p. 182). Unlike chapters 1––6, however, 11.18 does not say who is the source of the information. Hurd simply assumes that it is the same ‘Chloe’s people’ who informed Paul of other difficulties and disputes within the Corinthian community (Hurd 1965, p. 82). Dunn assumes that it was Stephanas and his companions (Dunn 1995, p. 19). Neither author, however, has much to say about what they think were the intentions and purposes of Chloe’s people or Stephanas, and where these might fit within the relationship between Paul and the Corinthians. Hurd concentrates too much on the reconstruction of the letter to Paul from the Corinthians, and does not really consider the content and motivation of the verbal communication. Dunn simply does not raise the question.
1 Corinthians 11.17–34
Turning to the text itself, the first point to note is that it opens with a condemnation of divisions within the community (11.18). There are a number of points within the letter that deal with divisions and a considerable amount of debate within the scholarly literature discusses what the nature of these divisions might be. Hall, for example, argues that the opposition faced by Paul in 1 Corinthians was inspired by teachers from elsewhere (Hall 2003, pp. 3–18). Hurd and Fee see the opposition as coming from within the Corinthian community itself (Hurd 1965, pp. 95–113; Fee 1987, pp. 4–15). Goulder (2001) is explicit in seeing the opposition as between Pauline and Petrine factions. Dunn (1995) simply sees the community as being prone to factionalism. The literature spends many pages debating the nature and identity of the various ‘parties’ that are mentioned in the opening of the letter (1.12), and there are numerous theories about who these might be. If it is assumed that the account of the meal was given to Paul by the same person, or people, who provided the account of the internal divisions at the beginning of the letter, whether this was Chloe’s people or some other informant, then it might be assumed that there is a relationship between the divisions of chapter 1 and those of chapter 11. However, the text of chapter 11 makes it very clear that the division that is being highlighted at this point is not one between ‘parties’ as such. It appears to be between those who come to eat their own meal and those who have nothing, and the text does not indicate that it represents any kind of ideological or theological difference among the people involved.
Some scholars have assumed that the division being alluded to is one between the rich and the poor within the community (Meeks 1983, pp. 67–8), but this is not stated explicitly in the text. Unfortunately, the text itself is not very clear. The issue appears to revolve around the translation of the word προλαμβάνει in verse 21. The compound ‘pro’ might normally indicate a sense of time associated with the word, in the sense of ‘before’, and so would suggest that some of those present go ahead with their meals before the others arrive (Fee 1987, pp. 540–5). However, other scholars say that this element of waiting is not necessarily implied by the word, and that there is no other context in which the word is used in this way in the New Testament. What Paul might be indicating, therefore, is merely a distinction between those who eat their own meals and those who get nothing to eat at all (Winter 2001, pp. 144–8; Lampe 1994). Either way, the text does not suggest that the division between those who eat and those who do not eat is an easy distinction between rich and poor. Further sociological analysis is needed in order to draw out that conclusion and I will come on to look at that in the following section.
Before moving on, therefore, I need to discuss briefly the issues related to the name, the ‘Lord’s Supper’ (χυριακòν δεîπνον, 11.20). This is the only point within the New Testament where the phrase ‘Lord’s Supper’ is used and there is no internal evidence to suggest what Paul might mean by this. The term was never taken up in any consistent way in other early Christian literature, and where it does occur, in the Apostolic Tradition and in the writings of Tertullian, there is no direct reference to Paul and the letter to the Corinthians, and so this does not help to determine its meaning (Bradshaw 2004, p. 44).
Next comes Paul’s statement of the ‘tradition’ that was handed on to him concerning the Last Supper (11.23–24). A number of commentators note that the structure that Paul uses at this point is similar to that used in some Jewish traditions for the passing on of teaching: ‘I delivered to you . . . what I also received’ (Donfried 2002, p. 302; Alexander 2001, pp. 116–21). This is also one of a number of places within the letter where Paul makes specific reference to what has been passed on to him (Furnish 1999, pp. 21–2; Ellis 1986). Throughout the letter it appears that Paul is very particular about making a distinction between what is being presented on his own authority and what he has received from ‘the Lord’ or ‘the Lord Jesus’. Hurd notes that references to authority, whether of Jesus, scripture, common sense, custom or his own apostolic authority is a feature of those passages that are responding to the Corinthians’ letter (1965, p. 74). However, this section is dealing with an oral communication. The distinction Hurd makes is that ‘it is noticeable that Paul’s rehearsal of the Lord’s teaching here does not seem intended to give the Corinthians new information to settle a new problem, but seems intended rather to recall them to earlier behaviour from which they had strayed’ (1965, p. 79). Here another distinction between responses to the letter and responses to oral communication is highlighted, that is, instruction about the future as opposed to correction