The Absence of the Expression "Poured Out for Many"

in I Corinthians 11:25

by William R. Farmer

We come now to a consideration of the fact that the important words attributed to Jesus in Matthew 26:28 || Mark 14:24, "poured out for many," do not occur in the account of the Lord's Supper in I Corinthians 11:25. If the text of the tradition Paul was handing on to the Corinthians read, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood poured out for many," the task of the historian would be less difficult. For then it would be possible to appeal to the criterion of multiple attestation. If these words, so reminiscent of Isaiah 53, appeared in I Corinthians 11:25, as well as in the text of Matthew 26:28 || Mark 14:24, the historian could point to this as sufficient evidence that Jesus spoke these words. How else would one explain their presence in two accounts which appear to have had separate histories of transmission? The absence of these words in the tradition being passed on by Paul provides reasonable doubt that they were used by Jesus. Because of this reasonable doubt I have been led to develop the comprehensive argument laid out in these reflections.

This reasonable doubt can be especially acute for the historian who thinks in terms of a doctrinal development based on the priority of Mark. For in this case one would note (1) that there is no linguistic evidence linking our earliest text concerning the Lord's Supper, in I Corinthians 11:23-26, to Isaiah 53; (2) that only a text later preserved in Mark contains the words, "poured out for many" from Isaiah 53; and (3) that it is only in the text preserved in the still-later Gospel of Matthew that the additional words "for the remission of sins" come into the doctrinal history of the Christian church.

This example illustrates how the theory of Markan priority can lead the historian to conclusions that call into question cardinal doctrines of Christian faith. No doctrine is more central to Christian faith than the teaching that "Christ died for our sins." Some exegetes appear to have little idea how their work affects Christian doctrine. Perhaps they think of Christian doctrine as having come into being largely through church councils later in the history of the church. The truth is that Christian doctrine begins with biblical texts and with the earliest interpretations of those texts, which we find in the New Testament itself. To think that whether or not Mark is our earliest Gospel is a question of little or no doctrinal consequence is naive.*

__________

*Rigorous scientific reliance upon Markan priority will in the long run certainly serve to undermine confidence in the church, if it is allowed to work its way into the minds and hearts of the faithful. We see this in the work of the "Jesus Seminar." The good intentions of these scholars notwithstanding, the effect of their historical conclusions leads to skepticism, not faith. It is a mistake to attack these scholars as incompetent. It is admissible, however, to call attention to the ways in which their questionable research paradigm is leading them to conclusions that call into question basic doctrines of the church.

This text has been excerpted from "Reflections on Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins" by William R. Farmer in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, William H Bellinger and William R. Farmer, Eds., Trinity Press International, Harrisburg, PA, 1998, pp. 274-275. It is posted to this web site at Professor Farmer’s request and with his permission.