J. Warren Holleran on the authenticity of Luke 22:43-44

It has long been recognised that the passion narrative of Luke in particular shares many features in common with late Jewish and early Christian accounts of martyrdom.[72] From this has been adduced for the originality of vv.43-44. The image of the cup over which Christ prays (v.42) was already common in martyrological literature.[73] But there are parallels, too, for the materials of vv.43-44: the appearance of the strengthening angel (Dt 32:43 [LXX]; Dan 3:49, 92 ,95 [LXX]; 10:18-19)[74] and the struggle of Christ in prayer.[75] And Hartmut Achermann has even introduced a parallel for the themes of sweat and blood in Jesus’ agony from the martyrdom of Eleazaros in 4 Maccabees 6:6, 11; 7:8. He claims that the use of these themes along with that of the strengthening angel, reveals the intention of the author of these verses to depict the prayer-struggle of Jesus in the passion possesses this martyrological character, vv.43-44 are thereby shown to be essential to the Gethsemane account as revealing its role in the rest of the narrative and hence original with Luke.[76] We may conclude our discussion of the Lukan authorship of these verses, then, by stating simply that, while the textual evidence leaves the issue unresolved, and even seems more negative than positive, the confluence of other indications suggests a positive decision.

Notes for the Above

[72] See, for example, Martin Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, tr. B.L. Woolf from 2^nd rev. ed. (London, 1934), pp.199-203. [73] Georg Bertram, Die Leidensgeschichte Jesu und der Christuskult fruchristlicher Zeiti (Gottingen, 1938), p. 85; Martin Dibelius, “Gethsemane,” C[atholic Biblical] Quarterly, 12 (1935), 260; idem, Botschaft und]G[eschichte], I, 265 [74] G. Bertram, op cit., p.47 and n.6; H.W. Surkau, op. cit., pp.93f. [75] M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, pp.201ff.; idem. CQ 12 (1935), 264; idem, BG, I, 269f; A. Schlatter, Lukas, p.433; Grundmann, Lukas, p.412; H. Flender, op cit., p. 54 [76] Hartmut Ascherman, “Zum Agoniegebet Jesu, Luk. 22:43-44,” Theologia Viatorum, 5 (1953-54), 143-49. According to him, the conclusion of the Son of Moses (Dt 32:35-43), and especially the LXX addition to v.43 (kai enischysatosan auto pantes angeloi theou) finds its Sitz im Leben in the situation of martyrdom, as it shown by its invlusion in a collection of consolation texts for martyrs at the end of 4 Maccabees and its use elsewhere (e.g., 2 Macc 7:6; 4 Macc 18:10ff.) (p.146). See also Surkau, op cit., p.94 n. 61; and Harold Smith, “Acts xx. 8 and Luke xxii. 43,” E[xpository]T[imes], 16 (1904-05), 478. [77] This has been the general drift of critical opinion until recently. See C.S.C. Williams, Alternations to the Text of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1951), pp.6-8; and above p.92, n. 50, and p.94, n.59. For the relevance of theology and theological history to the solution of the text-critical question here, see the remarks of Ernest C. Colwell, Studies in Methodology in Textual Criticism of the New Testament (Leiden, 1969), p. 151.

Source: J. Warren Holleran, The Synoptic Gethsemane: A Critical Study (Rome: Universita Gregoriana Editrice, 1973), 97-98