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 pattern of omission, critical marking, and relocation suggests an early disputed passage. The received position in Luke best explains the material’s language and reception, while its movement into Matthew reflects attempts to preserve words whose location had been questioned.
Variant class
Transposition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
Keep the two verses in Luke after verse 42.
Authorized Version
“And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” — Luke 22:43
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.
Historical annotation witness
Erasmus’s Annotationes
Erasmus’s printed Greek text, his Latin annotation, and the Research Center’s evaluation are distinct evidence. Each edition remains separately identified because Erasmus revised the Annotationes across his five editions.
Not yet assessed. No inference about Erasmus’s silence has been made. A Latin annotation and translation will appear here only after an edition and exact locus have been verified.
The Erasmus annotation audit has not yet been completed for this locus. Do not infer from this status that Erasmus was silent.
Westminster and Dutch annotation witnesses
Westminster Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
Dutch Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
Omit them, bracket them, or transpose them into Matthew 26 after Jesus’ prayer.
Translation or explanation
Omit them, bracket them, or transpose them into Matthew 26 after Jesus’ prayer.
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
Some early exemplars omitted or marked them because of christological difficulty or a perceived interruption. Theological discomfort, lectionary boundaries, and critical signs may then reinforce one another across generations.
Controlled source-list matches
Doctrinal significance and Westminster use
This passage is listed in one or both controlling research files. Their claims are reported with exact source identity and confessional use; list membership does not by itself establish the original reading or the Research Center’s final entailment.
Doctrinally significant variant listLuke 22.43-44
Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemised
Anonymous compilation — supplied source file pp. 17–18
Doctrine or doctrinal consequence identified by the source
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. 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. As mentioned above, Epiphanius even explains to us how and why the verse was for a time held in suspicion, but how it rightly came to be embraced again. This verse is authentic. We must not pull up ancient landmarks, by undermining the historic work of God's true Church in preserving for us this precious text.
Source-reported readings and witness argument
Received reading reported
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. 44 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)
Critical reading reported
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. Moreover, though the verse appears in Dr White's New American Standard, it appears with the following footnote: "Luke 22:43 Most early mss do not contain vv 43 and 44."
Manuscript and patristic support reported by the source
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, in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, written in the 2nd century; in Irenaeus's most famous work of the 3rd century Against Heresies; the words are recorded by Hippolytus in the 3rd century, by Theodoret in Dialogues in the 4th century, and by Athanasius in his 3rd Discourse against the Arians. Moreover, the 5th century Greek Father Epiphanius extensively explains in his work Ancoratus why the verse was for a time being deleted by the orthodox: namely, because they feared that it would undermine the doctrine of Christ's divinity. Epiphanius proceeds to explain that Christ, being fully human as well as divine, could and did suffer and fear in His human nature. He then affirms that the account of Christ's having sweat, as it were, great drops of blood, is authentic, having been cited by Irenaeus.
Editorial qualification: 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.
Westminster proof-text listLuke 22:44
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standards
Seth Stark — supplied source file pp. 46–47
Textual wording marked in the source
Critical/ESV side: NOTE
Westminster doctrines and propositions supported
WCF 8.4 — Of Christ the Mediator
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- endured most grievous torments immediately in His soul
WLC 49 — How did Christ humble himself in his death?
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- having also conflicted with the terrors of death, and the powers of darkness, felt and borne the weight of God's wrath
WSC 27 — Wherein did Christ’s humiliation consist?
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- the wrath of God
Editorial qualification: 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.
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. Some copies mark the verses with critical signs. The critical signs would then preserve scholarly suspicion of material recognized as secondary.
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: Some early exemplars omitted or marked them because of christological difficulty or a perceived interruption. Theological discomfort, lectionary boundaries, and critical signs may then reinforce one another across generations.
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
“Deliberate” need not mean malicious conspiracy; ancient correctors could believe they were removing a marginal intrusion. It accounts for the second-century patristic knowledge, the early physical inclusion, the prominent omissions, and the unusual mobility. GA family 13 witnesses that transpose Luke 22:43–44 into the Matthean passion.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
This range points to an early controversy inherited by later scribes. — Luke 22:43 If the verses began as a marginal story, addition to Luke and then relocation to Matthew is possible. Copyists who knew the words but encountered doubt then moved them to Matthew, preserving the passage while finding a new location.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
Both Gospels narrate the prayer, and a free tradition could attach to either. With that discipline, the received position still offers the strongest coherent history: the angel and agony belong exactly where Luke’s church has read them, between the submitted prayer and the arrival of the betrayer.
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. Some copies mark the verses with critical signs. The critical signs would then preserve scholarly suspicion of material recognized as secondary.
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
The most economical reconstruction is original inclusion followed by early suppression and secondary relocation. It accounts for the second-century patristic knowledge, the early physical inclusion, the prominent omissions, and the unusual mobility.
Historical reconstruction remains probabilistic. No surviving note from the first omitter identifies a motive. The Research Center should therefore separate observed facts—presence, absence, marks, location—from inferred causes. With that discipline, the received position still offers the strongest coherent history: the angel and agony belong exactly where Luke’s church has read them, between the submitted prayer and the arrival of the betrayer.
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.
Canonical-status rule: Physical printing is not canonical inclusion. If an edition prints a passage in double brackets while judging it secondary or non-original, it disagrees with the received text concerning the identity and extent of inspired Scripture.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Luke 22:43–44, the received text reads “Keep the two verses in Luke after verse 42.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” — Luke 22:43”. The assessed critical reading is “Omit them, bracket them, or transpose them into Matthew 26 after Jesus’ prayer.”. 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 “Keep the two verses in Luke after verse 42.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” — Luke 22:43”. The assessed critical form is “Omit them, bracket them, or transpose them into Matthew 26 after Jesus’ prayer.”.
- 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 “Keep the two verses in Luke after verse 42.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” — Luke 22:43”. The assessed critical reading is “Omit them, bracket them, or transpose them into Matthew 26 after Jesus’ prayer.”. 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: Keep the two verses in Luke after verse 42.
Principal competing reading: Omit them, bracket them, or transpose them into Matthew 26 after Jesus’ prayer.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
The surviving forms are not limited to “present” and “absent.” Some copies mark the verses with critical signs. Others move them into Matthew’s Gethsemane narrative. Lectionary practice can pass around them. This range points to an early controversy inherited by later scribes.
“And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.” — Luke 22:43
If the verses began as a marginal story, addition to Luke and then relocation to Matthew is possible. Both Gospels narrate the prayer, and a free tradition could attach to either. The critical signs would then preserve scholarly suspicion of material recognized as secondary.
Another history fits more of the evidence. The verses originally stood in Luke, where their vocabulary, angelic motif, attention to prayer, and bodily detail are at home. Some early exemplars omitted or marked them because of christological difficulty or a perceived interruption. Copyists who knew the words but encountered doubt then moved them to Matthew, preserving the passage while finding a new location.
Why transposition matters
Transposition is often evidence that scribes did not regard the words as disposable. A passage hovering near a parallel can arise from harmonization, but it can also reveal an attempt to rescue contested text. Here Matthew offers the obvious alternate home because Jesus has just prayed about the cup.
The received Lukan position is superior. Luke alone regularly foregrounds Jesus at prayer, records angelic ministry around decisive events, and describes the agony with a physician-like concreteness without requiring that the Evangelist’s profession explain every detail. Matthew’s narrative is complete without the inserted scene.
Accidental eye-skip alone does not convincingly explain every early omission of two verses. Deliberate or inherited editorial action probably played a role. “Deliberate” need not mean malicious conspiracy; ancient correctors could believe they were removing a marginal intrusion. Theological discomfort, lectionary boundaries, and critical signs may then reinforce one another across generations.
The received location
The most economical reconstruction is original inclusion followed by early suppression and secondary relocation. It accounts for the second-century patristic knowledge, the early physical inclusion, the prominent omissions, and the unusual mobility.
Historical reconstruction remains probabilistic. No surviving note from the first omitter identifies a motive. The Research Center should therefore separate observed facts—presence, absence, marks, location—from inferred causes. With that discipline, the received position still offers the strongest coherent history: the angel and agony belong exactly where Luke’s church has read them, between the submitted prayer and the arrival of the betrayer.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 26:36–46; Luke 22:39–47.
- GA family 13 witnesses that transpose Luke 22:43–44 into the Matthean passion.
- Claire Clivaz, “Luke 22:43–44,” Textual Criticism 19 (2014).
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-2117
- 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
- The proposed corruption history is an inference from extant forms; the precise date, agent, and motive of the earliest omission cannot be recovered directly.
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 IV — Omission, Transposition, and the Probable History of Corruption,” VAR-2117, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas