Corpus-Paul

["John Dickson" <jdickson AT bigpond.com>]

Due to the lateness of the hour – nearly midnight in my part of the world – I seek a second opinion lest I have missed something blindingly obvious.
The pronoun hEATOU in 1 Cor 10:29a is universally taken to refer to the Christians who had just been instructed MH ESQIETE. But while hEATOU may stand for the plural, it never does so in Paul, where the singular form always refers to a singular subject, either reflexively (Rom 14:7, 14:12, 14:14, 14:22, 15:3; 1 Cor 3:18, 11:28, 11:29, 14:4, 14:28, 16:2; 2 Cor 5:18, 5:19, 10:17, 10:18; Gal 1:4, 2:12, 2:20, 6:3; Phil 2:7, 2:8) or possessively (Rom 4:19, 5:8, 8:3; 1 Cor 7:2, 7:37, 7:38, 10:24, 13:5; Gal 6:4, 6:8; 1 Thess 2:7, 2:11, 2:12, 4:4.). Consequently, when the pronoun refers to a plural subject (as usually supposed throughout vv.27-28) the plural form appears without fail (Rom 1:27, 2:14, 6:11, 6:13, 6:16, 8:23, 11:25, 12:16, 12:19, 13:2, 15:1, 16:4, 16:18; 1 Cor 6:7, 6:19, 11:31, 16:15; 2 Cor 1:9, 3:1, 3:5, 4:2, 4:5, 5:12, 5:15, 6:4, 7:1, 7:11, 8:5, 10;12, 10:14, 13:5; Phil 2:3, 2:4, 2:12, 2:21; Col 3:13, 3:16; 1 Thess 2:8, 5:13). Thus, I’m wondering if hEATOU in 1 Cor 10:29a is to be read as a third person singular possessive referring to the nearest antecedent, EKEINON TON MHNUSANTA. Paul would then be clarifying that he does not mean to refrain from eating on account of the ‘consciousness’ of the unbeliever (assuming ‘the one who informed’ is an unbeliever) but that of the TOU hETEROU. In view of the crystallizing injunction just four sentences before – MHDEIS TO hEATOU ZHTEITW ALLA TO "TOU hETEROU" v.24 – a mention of ‘the other’ will most naturally be read/heard as a reference to the Christian for whom EIDWLOQUTOS poses a danger.
What have I missed? The commentators I’ve consulted skip over it without mention, assuming it is reflexive.
I’d appreciate clarification.
Charis,
John Dickson
Department of Ancient History
Macquarie University
Sydney, Australia