Abstract: This article examines the text-critical history of Luke 22:43–44 and argues, primarily on external grounds, that it is more likely that this passage was deliberately excised from Luke rather than interpolated. Along these lines it argues that this passage was excised from some early manuscripts of Luke prior to the end of the third century for apologetic reasons. Additionally, this article will question the anti-docetic interpolation theory, which is seemingly held by the majority of interpreters of this passage, and will argue that this is not the only way to understand the text-critical evidence.

. . .

Conclusion

In closing, Luke 22:43–44 is admittedly one of the thorniest text-critical problems in the entire New Testament. Modern scholarship on this passage spans three centuries and any text-critical assessment of this passage can involve a number of complex variables. The present investigation has focused almost exclusively on external factors in an attempt to establish a plausible context in which this passage could have been removed from select copies of Luke sometime after the middle of the second century and before the end of the third century as a result of anti-Christian attacks and a Christian failure to achieve a convincing consensus interpretation of this passage. While this thesis is admittedly built upon some circumstantial evidence it is no more circumstantial than the argument that this passage represents an interpolation that was added to Luke as part of an anti-docetic polemic. In fact, the present argument for the deliberate omission of the passage has an inherent advantage over the anti-docetic interpolation theory since it more closely conforms to the extant manuscript and patristic evidence. All of the earliest evidence from the middle and latter half of the second century establishes that Luke 22:43–44 was otherwise known (i.e. Justin, Irenaeus, Tatian [?]), as well as the earliest extant fragment of Luke (0171), from the late second or early third century, whereas it is not until some time in the third century, and potentially even the latter part of the third century, when this passage is not attested (𝔓69vid, 𝔓75). Given the nature of the evidence, it favors the interpretation that the passage was present and was then omitted, thus following the contours of the extant evidence, and not that it must necessarily have been added sometime in the early second century prior to its first attestation by Justin Martyr as Ehrman and others suppose. Furthermore, from Epiphanius there is direct evidence that this passage had a troublesome interpretive history through the fourth century and was indeed excised by “orthodox” Christians at this time. In sum, therefore, there are legitimate grounds for both seriously questioning the whole anti-docetic interpolation theory as well as taking seriously the theory for the early excision of Luke 22:43–44 from select manuscripts