3.1. The Inclusion of Luke
22:43–44. The presence or absence of these two verses
is crucial to an interpretation of the scene as a whole. The textual evidence
is ambiguous, though it is clear that the omission of these verses from so many
and diverse witnesses (e.g., P69 [apparently], P75,
Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, and the first corrector of Codex
Sinaiticus) could not have been accidental. Some modern interpreters (see
Fitzmyer, 2:1443–44; Ehrman and Plunkett; rsv) exclude these verses, noting
their uniqueness within the Synoptic tradition, the nature of the manuscript
evidence (especially P69 and P75) and the structure of
Luke’s account, thus judging them as inappropriate to their context and
suggesting that they were added later for the purpose of Christian instruction.
Others, however, point to the presence of these verses in Codices Sinaiticus
(original and second corrector) and Bezae, for example, as well as knowledge of
this tradition among the church fathers (e.g., Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus);
they also observe the impressive Lukan character of these verses. In addition
to the inclusion of characteristic Lukan vocabulary, they draw attention to
Luke’s well-documented interest in angels (e.g., Lk 1:11, 26; 2:13, 15; Acts
5:19; 7:30; 8:26; 10:3; 12:7) and Luke’s characteristic use of simile (“his
sweat was like drops of blood” [Lk 22:44]; cf., e.g., Lk 3:22; 10:18; 11:44;
22:31) (see Brown, 1:181–82; Green 1988, 56–57). These data, along with the
fact that the presence of these verses coheres with Luke’s interpretation of
this scene as a whole (see Tuckett), support the inclusion of Luke 22:43–44.
Moreover, it is not
difficult to imagine a rationale for the early exclusion of these verses in the
manuscript tradition. The portrait of Jesus contained therein—human, agonizing,
needful, requiring angelic support—would have been problematic to some (cf. Gos. Nic. 20 [see Brown, 1:183–84]).
Accordingly, they may have been dropped for theological reasons. There is thus
good reason for taking these verses as belonging to the initial text of Luke.
(Joel B. Green, “Gethsemane,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gosels,
ed. Joel B. Green, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin [2d ed.; Downers
Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2013], 310-11)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
