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
Second- and early-third-century Christian writers know the bloody-sweat tradition and use it in arguments about Christ’s incarnation and passion. Their testimony predates the great fourth-century codices but must still be evaluated as citation, not as surviving Gospel manuscripts.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
Receive the passage as known to early orthodox writers, including Justin and Irenaeus.
Authorized Version
“His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” — Luke 22:44
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
Treat the patristic allusions as evidence for an early tradition that may not yet prove its exact location or wording in Luke.
Translation or explanation
Treat the patristic allusions as evidence for an early tradition that may not yet prove its exact location or wording in Luke.
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
It also explains why the verses became theologically visible: Christians heard in the agony a powerful confession that the incarnate Son did not merely appear to suffer.
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. Because the passage served anti-docetic arguments, a critic may propose that Christians created or inserted it to prove Christ’s real humanity. Fathers are witnesses, not inspired textual editors, and exact citation counts are easily inflated when later catenae or uncertain attributions are included.
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: It also explains why the verses became theologically visible: Christians heard in the agony a powerful confession that the incarnate Son did not merely appear to suffer.
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: Treat the patristic allusions as evidence for an early tradition that may not yet prove its exact location or wording in Luke. Patristic evidence moves the question behind the age of the great codices. An account that begins the history with fourth-century manuscripts begins too late.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
It prevents the early manuscript omissions from being treated as the unchallenged second-century text.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
Principal competing reading: Treat the patristic allusions as evidence for an early tradition that may not yet prove its exact location or wording in Luke. Hippolytus belongs to the early stream that knew the agony tradition. Citation is not a photographed exemplar A church father can quote from memory, paraphrase, combine Gospels, or cite a traditional saying.
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. Because the passage served anti-docetic arguments, a critic may propose that Christians created or inserted it to prove Christ’s real humanity. Fathers are witnesses, not inspired textual editors, and exact citation counts are easily inflated when later catenae or uncertain attributions are included.
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 patristic evidence supports inclusion. It prevents the early manuscript omissions from being treated as the unchallenged second-century text. It also explains why the verses became theologically visible: Christians heard in the agony a powerful confession that the incarnate Son did not merely appear to suffer.
This conclusion should remain disciplined. Fathers are witnesses, not inspired textual editors, and exact citation counts are easily inflated when later catenae or uncertain attributions are included. The decisive point is narrower and secure: the bloody-sweat passage has an early Christian history, geographically and chronologically prior to the codices most often cited against it.
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 “Receive the passage as known to early orthodox writers, including Justin and Irenaeus.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” — Luke 22:44”. The assessed critical reading is “Treat the patristic allusions as evidence for an early tradition that may not yet prove its exact location or wording in Luke.”. 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 “Receive the passage as known to early orthodox writers, including Justin and Irenaeus.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” — Luke 22:44”. The assessed critical form is “Treat the patristic allusions as evidence for an early tradition that may not yet prove its exact location or wording in Luke.”.
- 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 “Receive the passage as known to early orthodox writers, including Justin and Irenaeus.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” — Luke 22:44”. The assessed critical reading is “Treat the patristic allusions as evidence for an early tradition that may not yet prove its exact location or wording in Luke.”. 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: Receive the passage as known to early orthodox writers, including Justin and Irenaeus.
Principal competing reading: Treat the patristic allusions as evidence for an early tradition that may not yet prove its exact location or wording in Luke.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
Patristic evidence moves the question behind the age of the great codices. Justin Martyr refers to Christ’s sweat falling like drops of blood in his discussion of Psalm 22 and the passion. Irenaeus likewise invokes the bloody sweat while insisting that the one who truly suffered is the same Jesus Christ who truly took flesh. Hippolytus belongs to the early stream that knew the agony tradition.
“His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” — Luke 22:44
These writers matter because Justin and Irenaeus stand in the second century. Their testimony shows that the material was circulating long before Vaticanus and before the surviving majority of Greek copies. An account that begins the history with fourth-century manuscripts begins too late.
Citation is not a photographed exemplar
A church father can quote from memory, paraphrase, combine Gospels, or cite a traditional saying. Patristic evidence therefore needs controls. Does the writer name Luke? How exact is the wording? Is the material located in Gethsemane? Do multiple writers in distinct settings know it?
Justin’s and Irenaeus’s uses are close enough to the Lukan scene to establish early knowledge, but not every phrase in the two verses is reproduced. They are strongest for the bloody sweat and Christ’s anguish, less exhaustive for every connective or for the angel’s exact wording.
Their polemical setting cuts in two directions. Because the passage served anti-docetic arguments, a critic may propose that Christians created or inserted it to prove Christ’s real humanity. Yet a useful text is not thereby invented. Irenaeus regularly appeals to received Gospel material against heresy; apologetic use can attest a reading rather than generate it.
What the fathers establish
The patristic evidence supports inclusion. It prevents the early manuscript omissions from being treated as the unchallenged second-century text. It also explains why the verses became theologically visible: Christians heard in the agony a powerful confession that the incarnate Son did not merely appear to suffer.
This conclusion should remain disciplined. Fathers are witnesses, not inspired textual editors, and exact citation counts are easily inflated when later catenae or uncertain attributions are included. The decisive point is narrower and secure: the bloody-sweat passage has an early Christian history, geographically and chronologically prior to the codices most often cited against it.
Sources and further reading
- Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 103.
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.22, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103322.htm.
- Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book 10, discussion of the incarnation and 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-2115
- 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
- Patristic wording is often paraphrastic; each author’s date, textual form, attribution, and dependence must be assessed rather than converted into manuscript statistics.
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 II — Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and the Early Patristic Witness,” VAR-2115, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas