Didache chapter 9 the Eucharist

[Secret Alias]

Let's start with WTF does "The head of every man is Christ" mean? Really. The allegorical reference to something as the 'head' of something else is pretty rare in Greek. I think it is evidence of a Semitism.

[Michael BG]

Also in the other thread Andrew Criddle posted this,

This would be a very interesting discussion to have. Ben do you know of a forum thread already devoted to this subject?

This specific observation I do not recall seeing anywhere, but I know that spin has argued for an interpolation here before. A quick search on this forum turns up only this post by Peter: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1458&p=33206#p33206. So maybe all of spin's posts on the topic were on the FRDB.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2019 may be relevant.

Andrew Criddle

While reading that thread Spin does seem to make a good case but I think more than just 1 Cor 11:23-27 must be considered an interpolation. We should consider “and in this way eat the bread and drink from the cup” of verse 28 and Paul’s earlier mention of the cup and bread in 1 Cor 10:16-17 and maybe 15. We also have to see 1 Cor 10:21 as this seems to be a reference to the Lord’s Supper and not the issue of where the food has been offered. However these earlier mentions of cup and bread might just be like the reference in Didache chapter 9 that I started this discussion with and as mentioned by Ben C Smith in the earlier discussion.

My suggested wording for the section 1 Cor 11:18-34 is provisionally:

[18] For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it,
[19] for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
[20] When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
[21] For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is 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 shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

[28] Let a man examine himself,
[29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
[30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
[31] But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.
[32] But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
[33]So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another --
[34] if any one is hungry, let him eat at home -- lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

1 Cor 10:14-33

[14] Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.
[18] Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?
[19] What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
[20] No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.
[22] Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
[23] "All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up.
[24] Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.
[25] Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
[26] For "the earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."
[27] If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
[28] (But if some one says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience' sake --
[29] I mean his conscience, not yours -- do not eat it.) For why should my liberty be determined by another man's scruples?
[30] If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
[31] So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
[32] Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,
[33] just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

Tertullian in Against Marcion 5.7.12-14 doesn’t really help to decide if the verses I have removed were there or not. When reading Epiphanius Panarion 42.11.7 and 42.12.3 there is no mention of cups or bread it seems to be all about food being offered to idols and the Jewish sacrifice system. (See Ben’s posting - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1838&start=10#p40562)

[Ben C. Smith]

1 Cor 10:14-33

[14] Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.
[18] Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?
[19] What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
[20] No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.
[22] Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
[23] "All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. "All things are lawful," but not all things build up.
[24] Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.
[25] Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
[26] For "the earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."
[27] If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.
[28] (But if some one says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience' sake --
[29] I mean his conscience, not yours -- do not eat it.) For why should my liberty be determined by another man's scruples?
[30] If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
[31] So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
[32] Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,
[33] just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

Tertullian in Against Marcion 5.7.12-14 doesn’t really help to decide if the verses I have removed were there or not. When reading Epiphanius Panarion 42.11.7 and 42.12.3 there is no mention of cups or bread it seems to be all about food being offered to idols and the Jewish sacrifice system.

Here is an idea. Look at 1 Corinthians 10.15-17 (which you omitted above):

15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

The italicized verse seems to be an interpretation of something like what we find in Didache 9.4:

4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.

It seems that Paul may already know some ritual like the eucharist in the Didache, which is completely devoid of body-and-blood symbolism, and he is adding that symbolism on as an interpretive layer. Many becoming one (as in the Didache) means many becoming one body: but whose body? It must be the body of Christ. But then what does the cup represent? Well, if bread is the body of Christ, then the cup must hold the blood of Christ.

I am not sure that Paul originated this symbolism, but it looks to me as if he may be quite aware that the Corinthians have never heard it, since he addresses this point to "wise men" and asks rhetorically, "Is this not the blood/body of Christ?" I am not sure I would have phrased it that way if the ritual, replete with all the body-and-blood symbolism in its very words of institution, had already been delivered to the Corinthians as per 11.23. I think I might say something stronger, such as, "You already know this." The connection seems more tentative, the point more of a reach, than something already long established from the beginning of the gospel preaching; or at least it seems so to me right now as I reread it for the umpteenth time. But this would imply that the heart of 11.23-26 was not passed along to the Corinthians.

Another point: the eucharistic passage in 1 Corinthians 11.23-26 seems part of a distinct narrative. The meal happened "on the night when Jesus was delivered up," and it was "after supper" that the cup was passed. Is this not the only spot in the Pauline corpus which seems to presume such a definite narrative with ongoing chronological markers? Even the suspected interpolation in 1 Thessalonians 2.15 is recounted as a single event or fact, not as part of a larger story. A presumed narrative would make sense as the basis for an interpolation whose scribe is working from the (already doctored?) gospel of Luke.

If 1 Corinthians 11.23-26 is an interpolation (or part of one), then it probably dates to well before the interpolation in 1 Corinthians 15.3-11, since that interpolation had the tradition coming presumably from other humans, while this one has it coming from the Lord.

Still not sure at all about any of this, but those are my thoughts for the evening.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

1 Corinthians 10:15-18
"15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?"
I always found very strange that Paul would present verses 16-18 (more so 16) as a product of his thoughts, if he knew of Christ last supper, one way or another.
Can anyone explain to me that 10:15-18 can be written by Paul, himself having full knowledge of 11:23-28?

And the introduction of the last supper is about the same than the one about Jesus' reappearances (1 Corinthians 15:3-11) which I am certain is an interpolation.
11:23a "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, ..."
15:3a "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, ..."
The tense of the verbs for "delivered" (aorist) and "received" (second aorist) are the same in both verses (also both being active indicative), despite their relative locations are switched.

I'll review spin's arguments tomorrow morning. And I might have to make some changes on my website and possibly declare 1 Cor 11:23-28 as an interpolation (as an "update" from the gospels).

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

I am not sure that Paul originated this symbolism, but it looks to me as if he may be quite aware that the Corinthians have never heard it, since he addresses this point to "wise men" and asks rhetorically, "Is this not the blood/body of Christ?" I am not sure I would have phrased it that way if the ritual, replete with all the body-and-blood symbolism in its very words of institution, had already been delivered to the Corinthians as per 11.23. I think I might say something stronger, such as, "You already know this." The connection seems more tentative, the point more of a reach, than something already long established from the beginning of the gospel preaching; or at least it seems so to me right now as I reread it for the umpteenth time. But this would imply that the heart of 11.23-26 was not passed along to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 10:15-18
"15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?"
I always found very strange that Paul would present verses 16-18 (more so 16) as a product of his thoughts, if he knew of Christ last supper, one way or another.
Can anyone explain to me that 10:15-18 can be written by Paul, himself having full knowledge of 11:23-28?

On this day in history, Ben C. Smith and Bernard Muller possibly agreed on something.

(I also believe I may have completely reversed my own thinking on these verses from 1 Corinthians 10 since the last time I dealt with them?)

[Stuart]

Ben,

When considering is an uncertain or more often an unattested phrase or verse or entire passages were in Marcion you need to establish some criteria to go by. I prefere to err on the side of exclusion. But basically it comes down to four factors:

1. is the passage attested (prefer if we have 2 or 3 witnesses)
2. Is the vocabulary and usage consistent with attested Marcionite text (e.g., the word "τε" never occurs in Marcion nor does "παραχρῆμα" rather "εὐθέως" - these are examples of common words without any theological value, strictly stylistic)
2b) are any unique (hapax legomenon) terms in the text?
2c) are there pastoral words in the text in question (Winsome Munro is my go to in determining this)
3. Does it intrude upon the immediate topic, creating a sort of digression.
3b) does including the passage change the understanding of the other material, especially in a more orthodox understanding
3c) if removed does a natural structure restored in the text (eg, perhaps a chiastic structure)
4. Does the phrase or passage fit Marcionite theology or is it inconsistent with it?
4b) Can the unattested passage be best understood in terms of Orthodox theology than Marcionite
- this is actually critical as Tertullian and Epiphanius would not hesitate to point out any inconsistency wherever they found it
5. is it (or a minimal set of the passage) required to connect attested Marcionite elements in a coherent manner

Note: attested textual variants must be taken with a lump of salt. First they could just be a local variant in the copy before the anti-Marcionite writer (variants are extremely common in any singular manuscript, regardless of which sect wrote it), and second they could come from a paraphrase or have been introduced by the Church Father - sometimes to make sense of a phrase he lifted which is missing the first clause, so requires a connecting word or two. Just keep that in mind.

If it passes these tests I include it in my reproduction.

I have additional tests, which are based on some presumptions. The first that the Church at the time the first collection of Paul was put together was not fully structured, and so questions of rank and positions like that of Rector did not yet exists. Also the era was heavy in proselytizing and nearly all the members were new converts: so questions dealing with offspring and interfaith marriages simply would not have arisen; nor concerns about how to handle new initiates nor worries about the perception f the church to outsiders. As a result unattested passages dealing with such matters are almost certainly part of a later edition(s). I'm sure I left many other things out, but that is sort of the checklist you have to run through and the concerns you have to have in mind.

There is never full certainty. But you can make a guess based on the above.

[Solo]

[

Just to help a little bit:

1) if this passage is genuine, it would be the single instance in the corpus where Paul refers to an actual, historical event from the life of Jesus. I find it absolutely curious that Paul did not receive more of this historical material, if the risen Lord was apparently indifferent here to exposing the apostle to accusations that his revelations were simply repeating what eyewitnesses related first hand and what he apparently heard from them.

The only other occasion I can think of his Paul’s teaching on divorce 1 Cor 7:10-11 (12, 25)

[10] To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband
[11] (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not leave his wife.

([12] To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.)
([25]Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.)

That is not a valid parallel, Michael. What I clearly indicated as "unPauline" in this passage was giving an account of a historical event that involved Jesus of Nazareth. In the no-right-to-divorce ruling Paul does not say, "The Lord delivered to me what he said in the Sermon on the Mount...."

2) curious also is the use of 'paradidomi' in the section. Paul's usage of the verb does not come close elsewhere to a possibility that Jesus was "betrayed". Compare with Rom 4:25, Rom 8:32 (where God himself delivers his Son), Gal 2:20 (where Jesus delivers himself up - idea echoed also in Eph 5:2). Yet almost all English translations of the passage accept Jerome's rendering of 1 Co 11:23 'paradidomi' in the Vulgate (Iesus in qua nocte tradebatur).

Best,
Jiri

I don’t think we should every translate 'paradidomi' in the sense of being betrayed but always as delivered, because it is often used as in delivered by God, which no one would translate as betrayed by God, but Paul does use the word and so it can’t be argued that the word is not Pauline. As I have said if used by Paul here it could just mean he was delivered by God rather than betrayed by Judas (the name Judas is not present here.).

You are mistaken: the verb could be used to convey either meaning. My point is that Paul does not use this verb elsewhere to indicate Jesus was betrayed, i.e. in a plot by one of his men to transfer him to the custody of the authorities who are hostile. If Paul actually uses the word as it was used in the gospels he departs from his habitual usage which is abstract and not connected to historical events.

Best,
Jiri

[Michael BG]

….
Here is an idea. Look at 1 Corinthians 10.15-17 (which you omitted above):

15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

The italicized verse seems to be an interpretation of something like what we find in Didache 9.4:

4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.

It seems that Paul may already know some ritual like the eucharist in the Didache, which is completely devoid of body-and-blood symbolism, and he is adding that symbolism on as an interpretive layer. Many becoming one (as in the Didache) means many becoming one body: but whose body? It must be the body of Christ. But then what does the cup represent? Well, if bread is the body of Christ, then the cup must hold the blood of Christ.

I am not sure that Paul originated this symbolism, but it looks to me as if he may be quite aware that the Corinthians have never heard it, since he addresses this point to "wise men" and asks rhetorically, "Is this not the blood/body of Christ?" I am not sure I would have phrased it that way if the ritual, replete with all the body-and-blood symbolism in its very words of institution, had already been delivered to the Corinthians as per 11.23. I think I might say something stronger, such as, "You already know this." The connection seems more tentative, the point more of a reach, than something already long established from the beginning of the gospel preaching; or at least it seems so to me right now as I reread it for the umpteenth time. But this would imply that the heart of 11.23-26 was not passed along to the Corinthians.

I disagree with your interpretation of Didache 9:4. The word church is always problematic, in this case I would like to interpret it as God’s assembly or people. Therefore at the moment those who are God’s people are scattered as broken pieces (I couldn’t see the word bread in the Greek) when God’s kingdom comes and this messianic meal we are foreseeing by eating together happens for real then all of God’s people will be gathered for the messianic meal in the kingdom of God. (The ingathering of God’s people is a messianic promise.) The cup, wine and vine represents the descendants of David. There is no blood or body of Christ in this saying in the Didache.

(Somewhere in the back of my mine there is this idea that blood and body do not fit, it should be flesh and blood. I think reading C H Dodd’s Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel put it there.)

According to John Ziesler there are two other passages apart from 1 Cor 10:16f where “Paul uses body (Greek soma) for the community of believers, the church.”

1 Cor 12:12-30 and Rom 12:4-9 are both concerned with individuals having different gifts and roles but are part of the whole that is the body of Christ, as in all those who believe. It is in 1 Cor 12:13 that Paul explains why all believers are one body and it is because they share the one Holy Spirit. Everyone is baptised into one body having (εποτισθημεν) one Spirit. (I think G J Cuming in 1981 presents a case for seeing the imbibing of the one Spirit as referring to baptism and not drinking.)

It is possible that a later scribe knowing Paul talks of being “one Body in Christ” and that his church sees the wine as the blood of Christ and the bread as the body of Christ has added these verses in 1 Cor 10. So I can agree this is a new interpretation of the thanksgiving meal of God. I can also agree that it builds upon Paul’s talk of the body of the church being like the body of Christ. However I am unsure that it was written by Paul and it seems to not be in the Marcionite version.

1 Corinthians 10:15-18
"15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?"
I always found very strange that Paul would present verses 16-18 (more so 16) as a product of his thoughts, if he knew of Christ last supper, one way or another.
Can anyone explain to me that 10:15-18 can be written by Paul, himself having full knowledge of 11:23-28?

And the introduction of the last supper is about the same than the one about Jesus' reappearances (1 Corinthians 15:3-11) which I am certain is an interpolation.
11:23a "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, ..."
15:3a "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, ..."
The tense of the verbs for "delivered" (aorist) and "received" (second aorist) are the same in both verses (also both being active indicative), despite their relative locations are switched.

I'll review spin's arguments tomorrow morning. And I might have to make some changes on my website and possibly declare 1 Cor 11:23-28 as an interpolation (as an "update" from the gospels).

Cordially, Bernard

I agree that the case is stronger for 1 Cor 11:23-27. 28b being an interpolation than for 10:15-17, 21. It is interesting that you are using the wording of 10:15-18 as evidence that 11:23-28 is an interpolation. When looking for layers in the gospels, breaks in the story are often used. I thought that 1 Cor 10:14, 18-20, 21-33 makes sense as a block. It seems that the RSV translation is problematic. The word Φημι which the RSV translates as “imply” should be “say” and it doesn’t even appear in verse 20.

My provisional translation of the verses 19-20 and 22 are:

[19] What then am I saying? That sacrificing to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything?
[20] But that which the people sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God. However I do not intend you to be partners with demons.
[23] In my opinion, all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. In my opinion, all things are lawful, but not all things build up.

These three verses together make much more sense, Paul is saying that sacrificing to idols is nothing, and eating food sacrificed to idols is nothing. You do not become a partner with demons if you eat food offered to idols. All food is OK to eat. Then he goes on to state why under certain conditions Christians should not eat food sacrificed to idols. So maybe verse 22 should be seen as part of the interpolation. When the interpolations are removed there is just a discussion about the nature of food not changing when sacrificed either to idols or by Jews to God. Including the circumstances when Christians should not eat food sacrificed to idols. The mention of the Thanksgiving meal is not relevant to this discussion in any way.

[Michael BG]

Just to help a little bit:

1) if this passage is genuine, it would be the single instance in the corpus where Paul refers to an actual, historical event from the life of Jesus. I find it absolutely curious that Paul did not receive more of this historical material, if the risen Lord was apparently indifferent here to exposing the apostle to accusations that his revelations were simply repeating what eyewitnesses related first hand and what he apparently heard from them.

The only other occasion I can think of his Paul’s teaching on divorce 1 Cor 7:10-11 (12, 25)

[10] To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband
[11] (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not leave his wife.

([12] To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.)
([25]Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.)

That is not a valid parallel, Michael. What I clearly indicated as "unPauline" in this passage was giving an account of a historical event that involved Jesus of Nazareth. In the no-right-to-divorce ruling Paul does not say, "The Lord delivered to me what he said in the Sermon on the Mount...."

It is your opinion that this is not a valid parallel because Paul does not give an occasion for when Jesus gave his teaching on divorce. Paul of course cannot refer to the Sermon on the Mount as it is a Matthean creation and Mark doesn’t have it, but does have the teaching on divorce. Paul is ambiguous, when he states it is a command or not a command of his or the Lords is he comparing two earthly men or is “the Lord” the heavenly Jesus? I am keeping open that he might be passing on a teaching of the earthly Jesus rather than a teaching he received from the heavenly Jesus. You can make out a case that this is the heavenly Jesus, but the possibility that it is the earthly one is present. I might even be persuaded that Paul has to mean the heavenly Jesus because he received nothing from men.

2) curious also is the use of 'paradidomi' in the section. Paul's usage of the verb does not come close elsewhere to a possibility that Jesus was "betrayed". Compare with Rom 4:25, Rom 8:32 (where God himself delivers his Son), Gal 2:20 (where Jesus delivers himself up - idea echoed also in Eph 5:2). Yet almost all English translations of the passage accept Jerome's rendering of 1 Co 11:23 'paradidomi' in the Vulgate (Iesus in qua nocte tradebatur).

Best,
Jiri

I don’t think we should every translate 'paradidomi' in the sense of being betrayed but always as delivered, because it is often used as in delivered by God, which no one would translate as betrayed by God, but Paul does use the word and so it can’t be argued that the word is not Pauline. As I have said if used by Paul here it could just mean he was delivered by God rather than betrayed by Judas (the name Judas is not present here.).

You are mistaken: the verb could be used to convey either meaning. My point that Paul does not use this verb elsewhere to indicate Jesus was betrayed, i.e. in a plot by one of his men to transfer him to the custody of the authorities who are hostile. If Paul actually uses the word as it was used in the gospels he departs from his habitual usage which is abstract and not connected to historical events.

Best,
Jiri

If we always translate it as “delivered” then each individual can determine their own meaning of delivered. If translated into “betrayed” the reader can’t interpret it one of two ways. You may be correct that the author of 1 Cor 11:23 does mean “betrayed”, but there is no way of knowing and so we shouldn’t use it as evidence for an interpolation. There are other better reasons to use.

[Ben C. Smith]

….
Here is an idea. Look at 1 Corinthians 10.15-17 (which you omitted above):

15 I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.

The italicized verse seems to be an interpretation of something like what we find in Didache 9.4:

4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom; for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, for ever.

It seems that Paul may already know some ritual like the eucharist in the Didache, which is completely devoid of body-and-blood symbolism, and he is adding that symbolism on as an interpretive layer. Many becoming one (as in the Didache) means many becoming one body: but whose body? It must be the body of Christ. But then what does the cup represent? Well, if bread is the body of Christ, then the cup must hold the blood of Christ.

I am not sure that Paul originated this symbolism, but it looks to me as if he may be quite aware that the Corinthians have never heard it, since he addresses this point to "wise men" and asks rhetorically, "Is this not the blood/body of Christ?" I am not sure I would have phrased it that way if the ritual, replete with all the body-and-blood symbolism in its very words of institution, had already been delivered to the Corinthians as per 11.23. I think I might say something stronger, such as, "You already know this." The connection seems more tentative, the point more of a reach, than something already long established from the beginning of the gospel preaching; or at least it seems so to me right now as I reread it for the umpteenth time. But this would imply that the heart of 11.23-26 was not passed along to the Corinthians.

I disagree with your interpretation of Didache 9:4. The word church is always problematic, in this case I would like to interpret it as God’s assembly or people. Therefore at the moment those who are God’s people are scattered as broken pieces (I couldn’t see the word bread in the Greek) when God’s kingdom comes and this messianic meal we are foreseeing by eating together happens for real then all of God’s people will be gathered for the messianic meal in the kingdom of God. (The ingathering of God’s people is a messianic promise.) The cup, wine and vine represents the descendants of David. There is no blood or body of Christ in this saying in the Didache.

What in my interpretation are you disagreeing with? Nothing you wrote seems to disagree with what I think of the Didache itself (most of my post was about what Paul is adding to the original ritual; "many becoming one means many becoming one body" is already part of the interpretation).

The Greek κλάσμα = "fragment". What it is a fragment of depends on context.