Luke 22:43 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]290
Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ ἐνισχύων αὐτόν.
MSS: ℓ339 (iii) (f173vc1-2), ℓ1086 (iii) (f170vc2)
Luke 22:43 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]q79f5vc3
ωφθη δε αυτω αγγελος απ ουρανου ενισχυων αυτον
Luke 22:43 [Codex Alexandrinus (A02) (5th century)]39vc1
Luke 22:43 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]57bc3
Luke 22:43 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D05) (5th century)]273v|527
: Ωφθη δε αυτω αγγελος απο του ουρανου ενισχυων αυτον
Critical Apparatus :
(1) Luke 22:43 : א , א²*, ℓ339 (iii), ℓ1086 (iii)
(2) OMIT Luke 22:43 : א¹, A, B
(3) απ ουρανου : א, ℓ339 (iii), ℓ1086 (iii)
(4) απο του : D
A Textual Commentary On Luke 22:43
(a) Without insisting upon more doubtful instances, it is thus that we can best explain the omission of the confessedly genuine verses (Luke xxii. 43, 44) from four of our chief uncial MSS. (A, B, R, T) of the 4th and 5th centuries; the sacred words not having been publicly read in the proper place, but after Matth. xxvi. 40, as a part of the service for the vigil of Good Friday, where they occur in every extant lectionary, and even in one cursive copy of the Gospels (Cod. 69), which, though itself as late as the 14th century, is known to follow a very ancient text. The double insertion of the noble doxology, Rom. xvi. 25-27, after ch. xiv., as well as in its proper place at the end of the epistle, by the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century, is best accounted for by its being so set in lectionaries as part of the proper lesson for the Saturday before Quinquagesima. Codex Bezae (D), again, of about the 5th century, prefixes to Luke xvi. 19 the formula εἶπεν δὲ καὶ ἑτέραν παραβολήν, which is the liturgical introduction to the Gospel for the 5th Sunday of St. Luke. Another of Cod. D’s prefixes, καὶ εἶπεν τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ, John xiv. 1, is almost identical with that in the English Prayer Book for St. Philip and St. James’s Day. But the strongest case of all is perhaps Mark xiv. 41 where after ἀπέχει is read in Cod. D and a few of later date (e.g. Cod. 69), the senseless interpolation τὸ τέλος or τέλος, “the end,” which manifestly came into the text from the margin of ver. 42, where it indicates in the usual manner the close of the Gospel for the third day of the carnival week. Since in this last case the patent transcriptural error is met with also in the Peshito Syriac, and in some forms of the Old Latin version, which together will probably carry us back to the 2nd century, it is hard to resist the inference “that the lessons of the Eastern church were settled at a period long anterior to the date of the oldest manuscript of the Gospels extant” (Burgon, p. 266) (A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. 1, Lectionary, p. 954)
(b) Thus, for instance, it is well known that some authorities omit the two verses, Luke xxii. 43, 44. ; but Justin gives us excellent proof that he read this passage in the former half of the second century. He says, εν γαρ απομνημονευμασι, α φημι υπο των αποστολων αυτου και των εκεινοις παρακολουθησαντων συντεταχθαι οτι ιδρως ωσει θρομβοι κατεχειτο αυτου ευχομενου (Dial. c. Tryph. S. 103) (S. P. Tregelles, Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 333)
(c) The forty-third and forty-fourth verses of Luke xxii. are want ing in the Alexandrian and Vatican manuscripts, in the Nitrian Fragments, (here) in the Codex Leicestrensis, in the Codex Vindobonensis Lambecii 31., and in the Thebaic version, and some other authorities ; and in the Codices Basiliensis B. VI. (E.) and Vaticanus 354. (S.), of the ninth or tenth century, and some other more recent manuscripts, these verses are marked with an asterisk, and in some of the MSS. collated by Matthaei with an obelisk. Their genuineness, therefore, has been disputed.
Epiphanius, Hilary, and Jerome bear testimony that, in their time, these verses were wanting in some Greek and Latin MSS. But, on the other hand, they are found in by far the greater number of MSS. (as Kosenmuller remarks), without an obelisk, and in all the ancient versions except the Thebaic, a revised copy of the old Latin, and a Memphitic MS. They are also recognised by Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Irenæus, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Titus of Bostra, and Csesarius. The reason for the omission of these verses in some MSS. and for their being marked as suspected in others, is by some supposed to have been that they were rejected by some of the more timid, lest they should appear to favour the Arians : it may be that they were omitted in Luke from their being early read in a lesson containing part of Matt, xxvi.
The verses in question are certainly genuine, and they are accord ingly retained by Griesbach in the text, without any mark to indicate that they are either spurious or suspected. (Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, volume 4, p. 451)
(d) All proper means, of course, should be used for checking the testimony of the oldest MSS., especially in places of supposed mistake. One important aid in this, as to the Gospels, is afforded by the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons ; for we are thus enabled to show the insertion or non-insertion of clauses in the third century. Thus in Luke xxii., vv. 43, 44 are omitted in A B ; they are marked with asterisks in others ; they are omitted in the Thebaic, the revised Latin Cod. Brixianus, and in one MS. of the Memphitic ; but, besides their being supported by other authorities, they form the section marked σπγ/ι ; that is the 283rd section of St. Luke, belonging to the tenth Eusebian Canon, comprising what is peculiar to the respective Gospels. Thus the section, though omitted by such good authorities, is well and satisfactorily supported. It was passed over, in church reading, at an early period, and hence transcribers omitted it. Its genuineness is well vouched by Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and Hippolytus. But, besides the MSS. which now contain it, it is supported, as to evidence, even by A, which omits it ; for that MS. has the Ammonian Section and Eusebian Canon in the margin, opposite the end of verse 42, to which they cannot belong.
(S.P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, pp. 204-205)