Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
$5.00
 |
 |
 |
Major Critical Texts of the New Testament
Byz RP: 2005 Byzantine Greek New Testament, Robinson & Pierpont
TR1550: 1550 Stephanus New Testament
Maj: The Majority Text (thousands of minuscules which display a similar text)
Gries: 1774-1775 Johann Jakob Griesbach Greek New Testament
Treg: 1857-1879 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles Greek New Testament
Tisch: 1872 Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament
WH: 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament
NA28: 2012 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament
UBS5: 2014 Greek New Testament
NU: Both Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society
SBLGNT: 2010 Greek New Testament ()
THGNT: 2017 The Greek New Testament by Tyndale House
GENTI: 2020 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear
 |
 |
 |
42 “Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”[a] 45 And when he rose from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping for sorrow,
[a] Other ancient authorities add verses 43 and 44: 43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground
Luke 22:42-45 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
42 saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” 43 —— 44 ——[1] 45 And when he rose from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping from sorrow,
 |
 |
 |
[1] The original words were no verses (P69 P75 א A B N T W itf syrs copsa some Greek MSSaccording to Anastasius MSSaccording to Jerome some Greek and Old Latin MSSaccording to Hilary Marcion Clement Origen). A variant reading is added [[43 Then an angel from heaven appeared to him, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed very fervently; and his sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground.]] (א*, D L Θ Ψ 0171 0233 f Maj (with asterisks or obeli: Δc Πc 892c 1079 1195 1216 copmss) most Greek MSSaccording to Anastasius MSSaccording to Jerome MSSaccording to Epiphanius, Hilary Justin Irenaeus Hippolytus Eusebius). The manuscript evidence for this textual variant is strongly in favor of it being excluded. So, did Luke pen this section and it was deleted later because some felt Jesus being overwhelmed was not in harmony with his deity, or did some copyists add this section later. It is highly unlikely that Luke penned them based on the evidence. Westcott and Hort also believed Luke 22:43–44 to be an early (second-century) interpolation, which they felt was added from an oral tradition regarding Jesus’s life. (Westcott and Hort 1882, 64–67) Bruce M. Metzger is certain that these words were absent in the original Luke. “The absence of these verses in such ancient and widely diversified witnesses as P(69vid), א A B T W syrs copsa, armmss geo Marcion Clement Origen al, as well as their being marked with asterisks or obeli (signifying spuriousness) in other witnesses (Δ Π 892c 1079 1195 1216 copbo) and their transferal to Matthew’s Gospel (after 26:39) by family 13 and several lectionaries (the latter also transfer ver. 45a), strongly suggests that they are no part of the original text of Luke. Their presence in many manuscripts, some ancient, as well as their citation by Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, and many other Fathers, is proof of the antiquity of the account. On grounds of transcriptional probability it is less likely that the verses were deleted in several different areas of the church by those who felt that the account of Jesus being overwhelmed with human weakness was incompatible with his sharing the divine omnipotence of the Father, than that they were added from an early source, oral or written, of extra-canonical traditions concerning the life and passion of Jesus. – (Metzger B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1994, p. 151) Philip W. Comfort observes, “The RSV [1946] translators were the only ones to exclude both passages (Luke 22:43–44 and John 7:53–8:11). Outside pressures forced them to place John 7:53–8:11 back into the text after its first printing (see comments on John 7:53–8:11), but they did not do so with Luke 22:43–44.” – (Comfort P. W., New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations, 2008, p. 234).
 |
 |
 |
EXTENDED COMMENTARY BY PHILIP W. COMFORT
𝔓69 was not cited in UBS3 in support of the omission of Luke 22:43–44, but it is now noted in UBS4 in parentheses. The editors of 𝔓69 (P.Oxy. 2383) were fairly confident that the only way to account for the size of the lacuna in 𝔓69 (from Luke 22:41 to Luke 22:45) is that the copyist’s exemplar did not contain Luke 22:43–44 and that the scribe’s eye moved from προσηυχετο in 22:41 to προσευχης in 22:45. The editors calculated that these two words would have been on the end of lines, four lines apart. The manuscript 0171 should be listed as “vid” (as in UBS4) inasmuch as it shows only a portion of 22:44; however, there are no obeli or asterisks as noted in UBS4. (For the reconstructions of 𝔓69 and 0171 respectively, see Text of Earliest MSS, 471–472, 687–691).
The manuscript evidence for this textual variant is decidedly in favor of the exclusion of 22:43–44. The Greek manuscripts (dating from the second to fifth century) favoring the exclusion of these verses forms an impressive list: 𝔓69 𝔓 א B T W. (The first corrector of א was a contemporary of the scribe who produced the manuscript of Luke; indeed, he was the diorthotes who worked on this manuscript before it left the scriptorium.) Other signs of its doubtfulness appear in manuscripts marking the passage with obeli or crossing out the passage (as was done by the first corrector of א). Its transposition to Matt 26 in some manuscripts and lectionaries indicates that it was a free-floating passage that could be interjected into any of the passion narratives (see note on Matt 26:39).
 |
 |
 |
The manuscript support for including the verses involves several witnesses, the earliest of which is 0171vid (ca. 300). None of the other manuscripts are earlier than the fifth century. However, several early fathers (Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Dionysius, Eusebius) acknowledged this portion as part of Luke’s gospel.
When we turn to the writings of other early church fathers, we discover that many noted both the presence and absence of the “bloody sweat” passage in the manuscripts known to them. We have notes on this from Jerome, Hilary, Anastasius, and Epiphanius. For example, Epiphanius (Ancoratus 31.4–5) indicated that the verses were found in some “uncorrected copies” of Luke (see Westcott and Hort 1882, 65–66). This tells us that in the early course of textual transmission, the Gospel of Luke (in this chapter) was being copied in two forms—one that lacked the “bloody sweat” passage (as in 𝔓69𝔓 T W) and one that included it (as in 0171). The question, then, is: Did Luke write these verses, which were later deleted, or did someone else add them later?
I affirm Metzger’s view of this: “On grounds of transcriptional probability it is less likely that the verses were deleted in several different areas of the church by those who felt that the account of Jesus being overwhelmed with human weakness was incompatible with his sharing the divine omnipotence of the Father, than that they were added from an early source” (TCGNT). Westcott and Hort also considered the “bloody sweat” passage to be an early (second-century) interpolation, added from an oral tradition concerning the life of Jesus (see Westcott and Hort 1882, 64–67).
 |
 |
 |
One would think, then, that the WH and NU editors would not have included the verses in a Greek text intending to represent the original writings. But both WH and NU include the bloody sweat passage (albeit in double brackets). Even though both groups of editors considered this passage to be a later addition to the text, it was retained because of its importance in the textual tradition. Westcott and Hort said, “these verses … may be safely called the most precious among the remains of this evangelic tradition which were rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the second century.” The words of Metzger echo this: “they [these verses] were added from an early source, oral or written, of extra-canonical traditions concerning the life and passion of Jesus. Nevertheless, while acknowledging that the passage is a later addition to the text, in view of its evident antiquity and its importance in the textual tradition, a majority of the Committee decided to retain the words in the text but to enclose them within double square brackets” (TCGNT).
Luke 22:43–44 thereby shares a unique position with another passage, the pericope of the adulterous woman (John 7:53–8:11). Both stand in the NU text because of their place in tradition. But neither texts are part of the original writings and therefore should not be included in any modern edition of the Greek NT. The refusal to relegate these texts to the margin—indeed, the persistence to keep them in the text (even if they are double-bracketed) gives Bible translators the grounds to persist in keeping them in their translations, which (in turn) perpetuates their authenticity in the minds of most Christians who depend exclusively on translations.
The RSV translators were the only ones to exclude both passages (Luke 22:43–44 and John 7:53–8:11). Outside pressures forced them to place John 7:53–8:11 back into the text after its first printing (see comments on John 7:53–8:11), but they did not do so with Luke 22:43–44. All other versions have kept Luke 22:43–44 in the text, with many providing notes about its absence in ancient witnesses.
As to Luke 22:43–44, most Christians consider this detail about Jesus’ passion to be authentic—in that it came from the hand of Luke as he received it from Jesus’ eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1–4). However, it is often interpreted incorrectly to say that Jesus was in such agony that he was sweating blood (technically called hematidrosis); that is why the text is often called the “bloody sweat” passage. But the text says that he was sweating so “profusely that it looked like blood dripping from a wound” (Liefeld 1984, 1032), not that his sweat became dripping blood.[1]
[1] Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008), 233–235.
 |
 |
 |
What really troubles this translator/author is that the churchgoer is the determiner of translation philosophy and textual decisions. The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament committee repeatedly overruled the evidence. I will list two good examples below. The pressure to ignore evidence favoring the churchgoers is enormous on publishing houses. If you did a survey on a Facebook group full of Christians and ask if one should follow the evidence where it goes, 100% would say yes, that is, until they find out what words or verses might be excluded, or what verse might be translated differently. John in Revelation exhorted what had also been said elsewhere throughout the Bible, “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.” (Revelation 22:18-19) Christians do not realize that the punishment for adding to and taking away from the Bible applies to everyone from the copyist to the textual scholar, translator, publisher, pastor, and yes, you, the churchgoer.
Luke 22:43-44: [omit verses] {A} [A = certain] Nevertheless, while acknowledging that the passage is a later addition to the text, in view of its evident antiquity and its importance in the textual tradition, a majority of the Committee decided to retain the words in the text but to enclose them within double square brackets.” – Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 151.
John 7:53-8:11: Although the Committee was unanimous that the pericope was originally no part of the Fourth Gospel, in deference to the evident antiquity of the passage a majority decided to print it, enclosed within double square brackets, at its traditional place following Jn 7:52. – Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 189.
Are You Following the Truth Regardless in Textual Studies, Bible Translation, Interpretation, and Application?
g
Leave a Reply