Why is Luke 22:43 absent in some ancient manuscripts? Text of Luke 22:43 “Then an angel from heaven appeared to Him and strengthened Him.” Where the Verse Is Missing The words are not found in a small cluster of early, Alexandrian-type manuscripts—most notably in Papyrus 75 (c. A.D. 175-225), Codex Vaticanus (B), and the original hand of Codex Sinaiticus (א). These same witnesses also omit v. 44, the description of Jesus’ sweat “like drops of blood.” Where the Verse Is Present 1. The majority of all Greek manuscripts (over 85 percent), including Codex Alexandrinus (A), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), and the later corrector of Sinaiticus (א^c). 2. Every known uncial of the fifth century onward except B. 3. All extant Old Latin copies except one (it^a). 4. The Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, Syriac Curetonian, Coptic Sahidic and Bohairic, Armenian, Georgian, and Ethiopic versions. 5. Patristic quotations from the second century forward—e.g., Justin Martyr (Dial. 103), Irenaeus (Haer. 5.2.3), Hippolytus (Ref. 10.21), and Epiphanius (Pan. 2.1.4). Early Patristic Use Justin’s citation in Rome c. A.D. 155 is earlier than every complete New Testament codex that omits the verse. The widespread geographic distribution—Gaul (Irenaeus), North Africa (Tertullian), Egypt (Athanasius), and Palestine (Eusebius)—confirms that v. 43 was known as authentic Scripture throughout the ancient church. Why Some Manuscripts Omit the Verse 1. Christological Scruples. Second-century docetists denied the true humanity of Jesus. Eliminating the picture of the Son of God in weakness and angelic strengthening conveniently served their agenda. Early Alexandrian scribes were especially exposed to these pressures (cf. Ignatius, Trall. 9). 2. Liturgical Streamlining. Luke 22 formed part of the annual Paschal lections. A scribe copying a lectionary exemplar could accidentally skip from “He prayed more earnestly” (v. 44) back to “He arose from prayer” (v. 45) as the eye fell on similar endings (known as homoeoteleuton). 3. Harmonization to Mark/Matthew. Neither parallel mentions angelic aid. A scribe favoring synoptic conformity may have judged Luke’s detail superfluous. 4. Accidental Omission in an Exemplar. Earliest papyri are fragmentary; a single defective line copied at Alexandria could propagate through the B-א tradition. Internal Evidence for Inclusion • Vocabulary (ὤφθη δέ … ἐνισχύων) is distinctly Lukan (cf. Luke 1:11; 2:9; Acts 4:31). • Angelic ministry parallels 4:13; 12:8-9; Acts 5:19, fitting Luke’s emphasis on heaven’s involvement. • The transition from v. 42 to v. 45 reads unnaturally without vv. 43-44; the strengthening explains why Jesus, moments later, addresses the disciples with composure. • Early scribes were far more prone to omit difficult readings than to invent them; the “angelophany” is the harder reading and therefore original by the canons of textual criticism. Consistency with the Whole Canon Hebrews 1:14 calls angels “ministering spirits.” After His temptation “angels ministered to Him” (Mark 1:13); after Gethsemane, an angel rolls away the stone (Matthew 28:2). The verse harmonizes with the witness of the full counsel of God. Archaeological and Manuscript Discoveries The 1931 excavation of Bodmer Lake yielded P75, whose omission sharpened scholarly debate. Yet the 1945 discovery of the Chester Beatty papyri (P45/P46/P47) confirmed massive textual stability across regions. The Dead Sea Scrolls (1947-56) proved the miracle of manuscript preservation—Isaiah 53 unchanged over a millennium—illustrating God’s providence in safeguarding His word (Isaiah 40:8). Miraculous Preservation and Providence Just as Yahweh preserved Israel through Red Sea deliverance, He has preserved Scripture through war, fire, and persecution. The conversion of the violent skeptic Sir William Ramsay on-site at Pisidian Antioch, after archaeology vindicated Luke’s titles (e.g., “politarchs” in Acts 17:6), attests intellectually and experientially to this divine safeguarding. Reliability of Scripture Unshaken Even if vv. 43-44 were in genuine doubt, no cardinal doctrine would be affected—illustrating the Spirit’s promise that “the word of the Lord remains forever” (1 Peter 1:25). Yet the cumulative external and internal evidence tilts heavily toward authenticity, showing that minor textual questions refine, rather than undermine, confidence in God’s inerrant revelation. Summary Luke 22:43 is absent in a handful of early Alexandrian witnesses likely owing to doctrinal or scribal factors, but it is overwhelmingly supported by the broader manuscript tradition, patristic citations, internal stylistic coherence, and theological harmony. Therefore Christians may receive the verse as genuine Scripture, a Spirit-breathed window into the compassionate ministry of heaven to the Son—and, by extension, to every believer who endures Gethsemane moments until the day of resurrection victory secured by the risen Christ. |
    |