As a matter of fact it is demonstrable that no Pauline influence can be discerned here. According to Paul, Jesus said at the Last Supper: My body for _you_ (1 Cor. 11:24). In the same manner Luke has: My body which is given for _you;_ the blood which is shed for _you_ (Lk 22:19, 20). Both the older Synoptists invariably write instead of this: for _many._ Mk 10:45 = Mt 20:28: to give his life a ransom for _many._ Mk 14:24 = Mt 26:28: my blood of the covenant which is shed for _many_. In the one case the persons who are to benefit by the Passion are definitely determined: they [pg 071] are the Disciples. In the other case it is a question of an indefinite number. Nothing is accomplished by the argument that it comes in the end substantially to the same thing. Why, according to the older Synoptists, did Jesus speak of the _many,_ according to Paul, of _his own?_ The sole explanation lies in the fact that Paul wrote from the standpoint of the Church after the death of Jesus. From this point of view the saving efficacy of Jesus’ death is applied to a determinate community, to those, namely, who believe on him. The Disciples represent this community of believers in the historical sayings of Jesus, because from the standpoint of the Church, founded as it was upon belief in the Messiah, one could not conceive that Jesus’ words about his Passion could have any other reference but to the believers. The early Synoptic “for many” is uttered, however, from the _historical standpoint._ That is to say, it is appropriate to the time when Jesus did not yet require belief in his messiahship, when consequently the number of persons whom his death is to benefit is left indeterminate. Of only one thing is he certain, that it is greater than the circle of his Disciples: hence he said, “for many.” Had [pg 072] he used the expression, “for you,” which Paul thought it natural to attribute to him, the Disciples must have concluded from it that he was dying for them alone, inasmuch as they could not then have the feeling that they were representatives of a future community of believers, according to the conception which was so obvious to Paul and the Church. Inasmuch as this _“for many”_ has held its place, in spite of the fact that Paul, writing from the churchly point of view, felt instinctively the necessity of substituting _“for you”_ (though he thereby coined an expression which is historically impossible), one is not justified in assuming any sort of Pauline influence upon the traditional form of the early Synoptic Passion-idea. The bold theory of the atonement in the Synoptists is therefore historical. Any softening of it, such as the modern-historical solution must assume, is without justification.