Luke 22:43

Luke 22:43 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]290
Ὤφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἄγγελος ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ ἐνισχύων αὐτόν.

MSS: ℓ339 (iii) (f173vc1-2)

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/CΠΓ
: Ωφθη δε αυτω αγγελος απο του ουρανου ενισχυων αυτον

Critical Apparatus :

(1) Luke 22:43 : א , א²*, ℓ339 (iii),
(2) OMIT Luke 22:43 : א¹, A, B

(3) απ ουρανου : א, ℓ339 (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, iv <yap aTTOfivrjfiovsvfUio-i, a (prjfii vtto roiv airoaroXav avrov koX tojv eKsivots irapaK6\0v0T]<rdvT(ov awrerayOai, on tBpws wael 6p6(i/3oi Kars- (Dial. c. Tryph. S. 103) (S. P. Tregelles, Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p. 333)


This entry was posted in 03. Κατὰ Λουκᾶν. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.