Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
The received text includes the strengthening angel, Christ’s agony, and sweat like drops of blood. The passage is absent from several major early witnesses, present in many others including an early fragment, marked in some copies, and transposed in a small stream.
Variant class
Transposition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
Include Luke 22:43–44 after Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane.
Authorized Version
“There appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly.” — Luke 22:43–44
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
Omit or bracket the two verses; a few witnesses relocate them near Matthew’s Gethsemane account.
Translation or explanation
Omit or bracket the two verses; a few witnesses relocate them near Matthew’s Gethsemane account.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
No passage-specific Metzger synopsis has yet passed editorial verification for this record.
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
UBS6 retains the NA28 / UBS5 Greek main-text wording in Luke, so no main-text change is shown for this passage. The separate project ledger covers Acts, Mark, and Revelation.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
Exegetical or interpretive consequence. The record does not establish that the variant by itself removes an entire Christian doctrine; explicit wording, exegesis, and cumulative testimony must be distinguished.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Luke 22:43–44, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. The verses are also marked with critical signs in some manuscripts. Physical instability can grow from critical marking.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 22:43–44 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
Exegetical or interpretive consequence: No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
Principal competing reading: Omit or bracket the two verses; a few witnesses relocate them near Matthew’s Gethsemane account. Papyrus 75 and Vaticanus omit them, as do several other important witnesses. Many Greek manuscripts include them, and the early fragment 0171 witnesses part of the passage around the turn of the fourth century.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Such transposition shows that copyists knew the words while doubting or relocating their position. What the evidence does—and does not—show The early omission is real. Their early physical witness, broad transmission, and deep ecclesiastical reception answer the early omissions.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text includes both verses. Their early physical witness, broad transmission, and deep ecclesiastical reception answer the early omissions.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 22:43–44. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. The verses are also marked with critical signs in some manuscripts. Physical instability can grow from critical marking.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 4 passage-specific notes attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
The Revision RevisedPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon — supplied PDF pp. 388
Burgon directly discusses Luke 22:43. The local discussion treats Greek manuscript evidence as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. MarkPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon — supplied PDF pp. 263
Burgon directly discusses Luke 22:43. The local discussion treats Greek manuscript evidence, ancient versions, internal and transcriptional considerations as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
A, the two grand verses which describe our LORD'S “Agony and Bloody Sweat,” (S. Luke xxii. 43, 44,) are missing. The same two verses are absent also from a few other important MSS., as well as from both the Egyptian versions; but I desire to fasten attention on the confessedly erring testimony in this place of Codex B. “Con- fessedly erring,” I say; for the genuineness of those two verses is no longer disputed. Now, in every known Evangelistarium, the two verses here omitted by Cod. B follow, (the Church so willed it,) S. Matth. xxvi.…
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster StandardsWestminster proof-text and translation comparison
Seth Stark — supplied PDF pp. 46–47
At Luke 22:44, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” 45” with the ESV/critical-text wording “And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” [NOTE: Though verse 44 is included in the ESV, in the Critical Text, it is placed in brackets as not…” and associates the passage with WCF 8.4, WLC 49, WSC 27.
Editorial use: This establishes a confessional proof-text and reception connection. It does not by itself establish the original reading, and its English-version comparison must be checked against the Greek variation unit.
Doctrinally Significant Variants ItemisedAttributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Anonymous compilation — supplied PDF pp. 17–18
Luke 22.43-44: It sets “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. (Luk 22:43-44 KJV)” against “The verse appears but is doubly-bracketed, which means, though the Nestle-Aland editors consider it to be an old reading, in their opinion, it nonetheless does not appear in the originals.….” Its stated doctrinal argument is that This doctrine is especially dear and important to the hearts of God's people, being cited in the Reformed Confessions, in the Westminster Confession of Faith, in the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and in the Belgic Confession of the Dutch Reformed Churches.lxxxiii The passage shows the deep extent of Christ's soul sufferings, even before He went to the cross. It is supported by the earliest of writers – by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Theodoret, Athanasius, and Epiphanius – and it appears in the overwhelming majority of Byzantine manuscripts, and even appears in Sinaiticus.… The compilation appeals to These verses are omitted in 𝔓75, Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus. However, they appear in Codex Sinaiticus, the overwhelming majority of the Byzantine manuscripts, and in a wide band of patristic witnesses. It is found in Tatian's Diatessaron,lxxvi in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, written in the 2nd century;lxxvii in Irenaeus's most famous work of the 3rd century Against Heresies;lxxviii the words are…
Editorial use: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Conclusion
“Like drops of blood” describes the sweat’s appearance or manner of falling; the wording does not require the medical diagnosis hematidrosis, though it does not exclude a bloody phenomenon. The textual issue should not be tied to proving a modern diagnosis.
The manuscript record is difficult because the passage was difficult. Christ’s agony was copied, queried, preached, defended, and sometimes moved. A full record preserves that history instead of letting either two codices or a bare majority end the inquiry.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Luke 22:43–44, the received text reads “Include Luke 22:43–44 after Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “There appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly.” — Luke 22:43–44”. The assessed critical reading is “Omit or bracket the two verses; a few witnesses relocate them near Matthew’s Gethsemane account.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Luke 22:43–44, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Include Luke 22:43–44 after Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “There appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly.” — Luke 22:43–44”. The assessed critical form is “Omit or bracket the two verses; a few witnesses relocate them near Matthew’s Gethsemane account.”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At Luke 22:43–44, the received text reads “Include Luke 22:43–44 after Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “There appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly.” — Luke 22:43–44”. The assessed critical reading is “Omit or bracket the two verses; a few witnesses relocate them near Matthew’s Gethsemane account.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized VersionReceived Greek reading
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- The Revision Revisedsupplied PDF pp. 388 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Marksupplied PDF pp. 263 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Luke 22:43–44
Received reading: Include Luke 22:43–44 after Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane.
Principal competing reading: Omit or bracket the two verses; a few witnesses relocate them near Matthew’s Gethsemane account.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“There appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly.” — Luke 22:43–44
Few passages in Luke combine evidence as complicated as the angel and bloody sweat. The received text includes both verses. Papyrus 75 and Vaticanus omit them, as do several other important witnesses. Sinaiticus has a divided correction history. Many Greek manuscripts include them, and the early fragment 0171 witnesses part of the passage around the turn of the fourth century.
The verses are also marked with critical signs in some manuscripts. In the Ferrar group and related witnesses they appear after Matthew 26:39 rather than in Luke. Such transposition shows that copyists knew the words while doubting or relocating their position.
What the evidence does—and does not—show
The early omission is real. A defense that says only “most manuscripts contain it” fails to address the strongest documents. At the same time, the inclusion is also early and widespread. This is not a medieval paragraph appearing after centuries of silence.
Physical instability can grow from critical marking. If an exemplar placed obeli or asterisks beside the verses, one descendant might copy them, another omit them, and another move them to a parallel location. Once the passage became controversial, ordinary genealogical counting became harder because witnesses may reflect an inherited editorial judgment rather than independent loss.
The passage’s vocabulary has sometimes been called non-Lukan. Other studies have found substantial affinities with Luke’s diction, medical imagery, angelic appearances, and intensified prayer. Stylistic arguments depend heavily upon which comparison set and statistical method are chosen; they cannot overrule the documentary history by themselves.
From dispute to judgment
The verses should remain in Luke. Their early physical witness, broad transmission, and deep ecclesiastical reception answer the early omissions. The marks and relocation are better evidence of ancient dispute than proof of interpolation.
“Like drops of blood” describes the sweat’s appearance or manner of falling; the wording does not require the medical diagnosis hematidrosis, though it does not exclude a bloody phenomenon. The textual issue should not be tied to proving a modern diagnosis.
The manuscript record is difficult because the passage was difficult. Christ’s agony was copied, queried, preached, defended, and sometimes moved. A full record preserves that history instead of letting either two codices or a bare majority end the inquiry.
Sources and further reading
- GA 0171, Luke 22:44–50; GA 𝔓75 and GA 03 (Vaticanus), Luke 22:39–46.
- Society of Biblical Literature, SBLGNT apparatus at Luke 22:43–44.
- Claire Clivaz, “Luke 22:43–44: An Anti-Docetic Interpolation or an Apologetic Omission?” Textual Criticism 19 (2014), https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/sblpress/tc/article/doi/10.15699/tc.19.2014.01/403834/.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-2114
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 1st century · Date Range
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Passage, principal readings, and stated editorial comparison checked against Scrivener’s received Greek text and the SBLGNT text and apparatus; exhaustive manuscript collation remains open. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis. Biblical readings are short scholarly quotations; cited editions and digital witnesses retain their stated rights and access conditions.
- Known limitations
- This article summarizes the principal documentary contours; correction layers, marginal signs, lectionaries, and family relationships require manuscript-by-manuscript verification.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Luke 22:43–44 I — The Manuscript Evidence for the Angel and the Bloody Sweat,” VAR-2114, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas