Rethinking the Origins of the Eucharist. Martin D. Stringer

      In a further paper, ‘The Strong and the Weak in Corinth’ (1982, pp. 121–43), Theissen suggests that the distinction that Paul makes between ‘the strong’ and ‘the weak’ throughout the letter is the same as that which can be made between the few high-status members of the community and the many lower-class members. This is argued primarily through the way in which each group is assumed to react to the question of meat offered to idols, which is discussed in chapters 8 to 10. The ‘strong’, the richer members of the congregation, would be expected to attend formal meals where such meat is served on a regular basis, while the ‘weak’, the poorer members, would hardly ever get a chance to eat meat anyway. The distinction, therefore, can be seen to mirror the economic and social profile of the community. Such an analysis, however, fails to take into account the possibility that the categories of the ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ may be part of Paul’s rhetorical strategy rather than representing real social groupings within the community (Smith 2003, pp. 193–6). Theissen does not really consider this and goes on to suggest that Paul generally sides with the weak against the strong but that the letter itself is addressed to the strong, to those who can read, or to the wealthier members of the congregation. This distinction, between the poorer majority and the richer few, is also essential to Theissen’s analysis of the meal in chapter 11.

      Theissen begins his analysis by stressing the divisions mentioned in verse 21 and identifying these as distinctions between the rich and the poor. There are two main reasons why he takes this position. First is the use of the phrase ‘those who have nothing’ in verse 22 (1982, p. 148). Theissen argues that having nothing must refer to a permanent state rather than to those who have nothing on this particular occasion. Second, he notes the use of the word ‘houses’ in verse 34 and argues that Paul is clearly addressing the wealthy at this point, as they are the only ones who would have ‘houses’ to eat their meals in. Both of these assumptions need to be challenged (Smith 2002, pp. 195–8). By emphasizing those who have nothing as a permanent state, Theissen does not acknowledge Paul’s rhetorical distinction between those who are hungry and those who get drunk, and it is never suggested that being ‘drunk’ should be seen as a permanent state (Fee 1987, p. 543; Winter 2001, pp. 147–8). As to the ‘houses’, this again should not perhaps be taken literally and could be translated as ‘homes’ (as it is in the NIV and other translations) rather than referring to a particular high-status ‘house’. All members of the community would have some kind of home to eat their meals in. It is fair to assume, therefore, that sociologically the community in Corinth was mixed, with both richer and poorer members but that this may not have been the only division in the meal.

      The cultural, or religious, make-up of the community is far more difficult to determine, and it is not something that those who are concerned about the sociology of the Pauline communities spend very long discussing (Winter 2001, p. 150; Meeks 2001, p. 135). If, however, the account in Acts is taken at face value, then Paul’s first contact in Corinth was a Jew named Aquila (Acts 18.2). Paul also began his teaching in Corinth, as in all cities, within the synagogue (18.4), and when he was thrown out he moved next door, presumably taking some members of the synagogue with him. One leader of the synagogue, Crispus, is mentioned by name (18.7–8). There were, therefore, some Jews among the community. It is also clear, from Theissen’s list of named members of the Corinthian community, that other members of the community were Greeks or even Romans (Theissen 1982, pp. 73–96). One common suggestion is that many of the non-Jews could have been so-called ‘God fearers’, Greeks and Romans who had a great deal of sympathy for, and knowledge of, Jewish beliefs and traditions but were reluctant for whatever reason to convert (Esler 1987). Unfortunately so little is known about synagogue life and organization, especially within the Diaspora, during the first century ce, that it is impossible to make any firm statement on this (Runesson 2001; Lieu 2002). The text of both first and second Corinthians also makes it clear that there are a significant number of Gentiles within the community who probably had no previous association with the Jews. Given all this, it is fair to suggest that the Christian community in Corinth was made up of some Jews, although perhaps not very many, some Greeks or Romans who had knowledge of, and sympathy for, Jewish ideas, although again perhaps not very many, and some who were converted directly without any previous knowledge of Jewish scriptures and traditions. While no firm predictions can be made about the relative proportions of these groups, it is fairly clear that the leaders of the community, including the leaders of worship, would most likely have come from one or other of the first two groups.

      Finally, therefore, in this discussion of the community, what can be said about the number of members who might have attended the meal? Like so much else in this area, making any accurate statements is of course impossible. Goulder notes that Luke says twice that many believed at Corinth and paints the picture of the community reaching perhaps 50 members in 50–51 ce and moving from the house of Titus to that of the wealthy convert Gaius. However, he notes that even here ‘the house would probably not have rooms with space for fifty people to eat together, and we have to think of the church as meeting in his garden’ (Goulder 2001, p. 225). White also notes that ‘the assembly was regularly convened in the dining room of the house’ but that this might have taken a number of different forms within the cities of the Aegean (1990, p. 107). From all the information that is available, and based on sociological models, it is most likely that the group was relatively small, with a maximum of about 100 members and a minimum of 50. One implication of this is that the members of the community probably sat for the meal rather than reclining as was usual at many Roman banquets (Smith 2003, p. 177). This is going to be significant for anything that might be said about the nature and frequency of the meal below.

      The Lord’s Supper within the Corinthian community

      For all of his analysis of the social make-up of the community and his emphasis on the rich and the poor, or the weak and the strong, the essence of Theissen’s reconstruction of the meal itself is not entirely dependent on these assumed divisions (1982, pp. 153–63). Theissen argues that the institution narrative must, in some way, reflect the heart of the ‘cultic’ meal, the ‘Lord’s’ Supper (χυριακòν δεîπνον), which he suggests was probably a limited meal consisting only of bread and wine. This, Theissen argues, is what Paul had instituted within the community. The rich, however, were holding a pre-meal, a ‘personal’ supper (ίδιον δεîπνον), probably containing meat and other foodstuffs, before the Lord’s Supper begins and it is this personal supper, Theissen argues, that Paul is objecting to. The Lord’s Supper in this view must have followed the personal meals because it begins, according to the text of the tradition, with the blessing of bread. If such a blessing took place at the very beginning of the event then many of those who came late (after others had begun the meal) would have missed an important element of the cultic event. This, in Theissen’s view, would have been unthinkable so the meal that people came late to must be a pre-meal. Such a view would certainly fit the text, but has no kind of precedent in the ancient world as a structure and clearly makes too many assumptions to be comfortable.

      The crux of Theissen’s analysis depends on his assumption that the Lord’s Supper itself must reflect the narrative of the Last Supper; that is, the ‘sacred, cultic formula’ for the meal. This, he argues, would have been followed meticulously because Paul had instituted it with a specific reference to what Jesus had done. Theissen states, ‘in my opinion it is unthinkable that Paul would quote a sacred, cultic formula, expressly state that he received it in just this and no other form, and yet at the same time tacitly suppose that its order is not to be followed’ (1982, p. 152). If, however, the narrative was not a regular part of the meal, and therefore not seen as a sacred blueprint for the meal, then the whole argument begins to fall apart (Bradshaw 2004, pp. 13, 45).

      Mazza suggests that the order cup–bread, as presented in 10.16–17, underlies the structure of the meal, but this is based on comparison with the Didache and other texts and cannot be justified from 1 Corinthians itself (Mazza 1995, pp. 76–8). The meal itself could have consisted of any number of foodstuffs, including, of course, bread and wine, and it does not need to be held in any special, sacred or, as Theissen describes it, ‘cultic’ fashion (Lampe 1994). It could simply be a shared meal, or a meal to which each person brought their own food and which each member of the community started as soon as they arrived, what Lampe (1994) identifies