European Association of Biblical Studies and Society of Biblical Literature location:Thessaloniki, Greece date:8-11 August 2011
In 1 Cor 11:17-34 Paul chastises the Corinthians for their faulty celebration of the Lord’s Supper (vv.17-22). Paul articulates the abuses in v. 21: hekastos gar to idion deipnon prolambanei en tō phagein kai hos men peina(i) os de methuei. Gordon D. Fee describes v. 21 as “the sentence where most of our ambiguities lie” because of words like hekastos, idion and prolambanei. However, the ambiguities in v. 21a are compounded by v. 21b. The vagueness lies on the identity of the referent of peinaō `in v. 21b and when Paul uses it again in v. 34a. When Paul rounds up his argument and presents an alternative to respond to the abuses at the Lord’s Supper, he writes in v. 34: ei tis peina(i) en oikō ethietō.. Is Paul talking to and about the same person(s) in vv. 21 and 34 as referent(s) of peinaō? This study will first critically present the different positions concerning the identity of the referent of peinaō in vv. 21 and 34. Then, I focus on the use of the verb peinaō in Paul, the NT and the LXX. Using narrative analysis, I will argue that the referent(s) of the verb peinaō in vv. 21 and 34 are the same and that this is why Paul commands that they should be allowed to eat en oikō and in the midst of the gathered ekklēsia during the Lord’s Supper.