Did Jesus Sweat Blood?

In the revised printing of the English Edition ofthe Synopsis of the Four Gospels, editor Kurt Aland identifies a difference between ancient sources for the Gospel of Luke in the inclusion or omission of chapter 22.43-44 (297). Invariably, there is a divide between scholars concerning whether or not this text is original to Luke based on various theological and stylistic consequences of the verses' presence or absence. In "Gethsemane," from the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Joel B. Green offers a defense in favor of the originality of 22.43-44 of Luke, while Bart Ehrman argues the opposite in his first lecture, "Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the 'Original' Text," from the Kenneth W. Clark lecture series delivered at Duke Divinity School in 1997. Utilizing their research and arguments, I will present a case for my perspective on the original text as composed by Luke and why a variation may have been added.

Beginning with the perspective that Luke 22.43-44 is crucial to an understanding of the entire Gethsemane scene for Luke, Green argues in favor of these verses to the original text based not only on the characteristic Lukan language which also appears in these verses, but also on several points of stylistic and narrative emphasis consistent within the rest of Luke's gospel. Green notes that Luke's emphasis of an angel's appearance to Christ demonstrates Luke's favoritism towards angelic appearances, as angels manifest themselves nine times other between his gospel and the book of Acts (266). Similarly, Green recalls the physical unity Luke enjoys portraying with supernatural events in noting how the blood-sweat of Jesus accompanies his spiritual turmoil in approaching the cross-which Luke describes though a mode which he utilizes quite frequently, simile. Besides these stylistic similarities between the whole of Luke's gospel and 22.43-44, Green notes that these verses may have been instrumental in combating Gnosticism within the early church by painting Jesus as a very human figure, "agonizing, needful, and requiring angelic support," (267) though they may have been omitted from later texts for doctrinal reasons particular to later centuries.

Raising the source-critical question, Green assumes Markan priority, theorizing that Luke was not dependant on Mark's gospel alone, providing three reasons for this, but also likely used a text roughly parallel to Mark. Describing Luke as artistically intertwining the Markan account of Gethsemane with his other source, Green explains differences between the Mark and Luke accounts of Jesus on his way to his passion by Luke's stylistic distaste for Markan doublets, assuming Luke substituted Jesus' physically agonized prayer for several instances of Jesus in prayer. Green also describes the Lukan Jesus' line of prayer, "not my will but yours be done" as the addition of language "missing from Luke's version of the Lord's prayer (11.2-4)" which has no parallel in Mark (267). Yet what might the theological significance be of this scene in Luke's original text be? Primarily, Green suggests, as a continued Lukan emphasis of Jesus as a paradigm for his disciples' obedience to God. However, "also of profound importance to Luke's scene is the way in which every aspect of the story is subordinated to the divine necessity of Jesus' suffering and his unreserved submission to the divine will." (267) In addition to these Lukan motifs, Green says the scene of 22.43-44 is crucial to understanding "Luke's portrayal of Jesus' passion as a martyrdom," (267) or a demonstration of Jesus within the role of the Isaianic Suffering Servant of God. Green's overall argument for his inclusion of Luke 22.43-44 is from its fittingness with the Lukan style of writing and martyr-like depiction of Christ's death.

Bart Ehrman, however, reads Luke 22.43-44 as an addition made to the text by a later scribe, rather than the words of the evangelist. In his lecture, Ehrman noted that "the manuscripts that are known to be earliest and that are generally conceded to be the best do not, as a rule, include the verses. So perhaps they are a later scribal addition. On the other hand, they are found in several other early witnesses and are, on the whole, widely distributed throughout the entire manuscript tradition." Since Ehrman describes determining the basis for a theory of the originality of these two verses to Luke's manuscript is nearly impossible on the bases of merely the manuscripts themselves, he begins a process of eliminating unhelpful theories on his way to concluding the originality of Luke 22.43-44. Rejecting the very bases on which Green argued his theory, against "'characteristically Lukan' ideas, constructions, and phrases" as really "common in uncharacteristically Lukan ways (e.g., angels never appear without speaking in Luke)," Ehrman says that in actuality "there is an inordinately high concentration of unusual words and phrases in these verses." Having rejected arguments describing the passages in continuity with Lukan style, Ehrman turns to an examination of the literary structure of Luke without 22.43-44, and the meaning which this structure illuminates in the passage.

Ehrman identifies the structure of vs. 40-46 (with the omissions of vs. 43-44) as a chiastic structure which, "contrary to the claims of some scholars, chiasmus is a relatively rare phenomenon within the pages of the New Testament" and thus this specific usage would highlight an important message in the text. Noting how this chiasmus is bracketed by two directions to the disciples to pray, Ehrman finds the chiastic structure to highlight Jesus' prayer, which supplies "the passage's point of focus and, correspondingly, its hermeneutical key. This is a lesson on the importance of prayer in the face of temptation." Drawing out the consequences of the disciples' failure to heed Jesus and pray, their flight at the arrival of a mob to apprehend Jesus, Ehrman sees the text without vs. 43-44 as a fluid, compelling demonstration of Jesus' example: he alone diligently prayed, and courageously obeyed the will of his Father, submitting to martyrdom. If one reinserts vs. 43-44, Ehrman complains, the entire chiastic structure is destroyed and Luke's emphasis on prayer as preparation for martyrdom is lost. And why, he questions, would Luke portray Jesus as fearful at his most important moment, when at no other instance in his gospel does Luke demonstrate Jesus in such anxiety.

Examining Luke's Gethsemane passage in redaction to Mark's gospel, Ehrman says Luke goes to great lengths to revise Mark's picture of a trembling Jesus to one calmly approaching his cross, prepared to face an obedient death peacefully in prayer; why would Luke take such measures and then simply make Jesus fearful again? Following Luke's passion narrative to its end, Ehrman observes that Jesus never succumbs to the weakness of the flesh, intelligently engaging his fellow victims in encouraging conversation about paradise and "in full confidence of his standing before God, commends his soul to his loving Father: 'Father, into your hands I commend my spirit' (24:46)." Does this sound like a man who merely two chapters previous was sweating blood over his death?

While I traditionally leaned toward Green's opinion, Ehrman's argument concerning the compromise of the chiastic structure, the emphasis of an enabling obedience through prayer-even to the point of martyrdom, convinces me more. From the principles of textual aging, it does seem a common occurrence as well that the oldest texts are briefer than subsequent copies, since later editors could perhaps change the message of a text with less guilt of omitting some "word of God" by an addition. And it seems likely that Luke would have been writing a life of Christ in part to provide an example of fearless Christian living for persecuted believers in the early Church. Perhaps a later scribe felt that the Gnostic notion of Jesus merely appearing to be human could too easily be proof-texted from the Lukan Jesus, and so made this addition of vs. 43-44 in order to demonstrate that despite battling human weakness, Christ overcame the depravity of the flesh and redeemed it through the ultimate obedience of martyrdom. Thus I conclude in my opinion, vs. 43-44 of Luke 22 seem to be an addition to the original text of the evangelist.

References:

Aland, Kurt., ed. Synopsis of the Four Gospels. New York: American Bible Society, 1982. Revised printing, 1985.

Ehrman, Bart. "Lecture One: Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text," [Class Lecture], Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies from The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures Series given at Duke Divinity School in 1997. Accessed 21 April 2010; available from http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol05/Ehrman2000a.html;Internet.

Green, Joel B. "Gethsemane," in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, ed. Downer's Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992.