# Defending the Lord's Prayer 1



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 31, 2007)

*Introduction to Defending the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6*

A short while ago Pastor Ken Klein asked about teaching from the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s Question #107, which reads, “What doth the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer teach us?”, seeing as the “conclusion” is omitted in all the modern Bible versions based on the Critical Text. (Cf. thread, The Critical Text and WSC Q #107.) It’s a good question, for if it’s not in the Bible, a) what’s it doing in the Westminster Standards, and b) why is there no investigation by the churches who use these Standards concerning this discrepancy, along with a public explanation to those officers / church members held to the Standards?

Concerning this portion of Scripture, I’m going to be looking at what the popular defender of the Critical Text [CT], Dr. James White says, in his book, _The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?_ [KJOC] (Bethany 1995), and comparing it with what the popular defender of the Textus Receptus [TR], John William Burgon says in _his_ book, _The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels_ (Bible for Today, reprint). (This book is also available online at CCEL.)

Readers of the NIV will note that the margin says concerning verse 13b (_For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen_), “some late manuscripts” have it. Even worse, the ESV margin says, “some manuscripts *add*” it [emphasis mine], implying a blatant falsification. So what is the truth concerning this portion of our holy Scriptures? Such margin notes (and relegation of Scripture away from the text and into the margins as well) perplex and trouble young – and often old – believers. Do we have a sure word of God, they ask? Are these words (among many others in similar circumstances) genuine? When there is such disagreement between scholars and experts, how can I be sure my Bible is reliable?

I apologize up front for the lengthiness of this study, but, seeing as it pertains to the trustworthiness of the bedrock upon which the entire house of the Christian faith stands, it seems to be justified, at least in the eyes of careful students of these things – *and* in the eyes of Him with whom we have to do, whose word this bedrock is.

I will also add to those who _defend_ the Prayer as it originally stood, Dr. E.F. Hills, quoting from his _The King James Version Defended_, and Dr. Thomas Holland, from his book, _Crowned With Glory_, and give links to some others. I realize this is sort of unfair to Dr. White, as his remarks in KJOC were not intended to be a thoroughgoing defense of his view, but just a popular presentation. Still, one can get an idea of the differing sides, and what they say.

In this study, I will only be looking at Dr. White’s remarks on Matthew’s version at 6:13, due to his publisher Bethany House’s limitation of quotes (per their “Fair Use” policy) to 250 words (I am not counting his Scripture examples or Metzger quote as his own work). In http://another study I will look at his remarks on the Prayer as it is in Luke 11:2-4, again comparing it to Burgon’s published remarks. These both will be exercises in considering evidences. There are some who fault me for writing at such length, as if I thought “the majority of words in…articles wins an argument!” No, it is that the topic warrants careful examination, as I noted two paragraphs up. I write not to “win arguments” but to defend the words of our Lord and Savior from being “scissored” out of our Bibles, seeing as He said that man shall live “by *every word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matt 4:4) Is not every word of His precious? And did He not say, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away”? (Matt 24:35)

Need I say again I do not want to see this thread used as a means to heap insult, hostility, and slander on those who differ with the King James / Textus Receptus 1894 defense? That but shows a deficit of ability to mount a proper defense. Heat but no light. And even if our opponents indulge in the dark powers of slander, ridicule, contempt, hostility and falsehood, must we fight such fire with like fire? Can we not conduct ourselves with the dignity and grace that becomes the royalty of Heaven, citizens of the Kingdom of eternal glory, younger brothers and sisters of the Lord Christ? And have we not the power of truth, needing not earthly and devilish devices?

I will make some comments after – or possibly in the midst of – the presentations that follow. The study of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 will follow shortly, and separately.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 31, 2007)

*Dr. White's view*

From James White’s _The King James Only Controversy_, “Part Two – The Textual data,” page 252.

*MATTHEW 6:13: THE LORD’S PRAYER*

The “Lord’s Prayer” of Matthew 6 is an excellent text for illustrating how scribal expansion took place in the context of a passage that was deeply ingrained in the Christian liturgy from the earliest times. Not only does the “long ending” in verse 13 provide a valuable insight into the habits of the scribes, but the many efforts at harmonizing Luke’s much abbreviated version in Luke 11:2-4 are of great interest as well. Here is Matthew 6:13:

KJV

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: *For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen.*

NIV

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

As in the “longer ending” of Mark, the additional material in verse 13 gives us indications of its later origin in a number of ways. First we have the external evidence against its originality. The verse ends as in the NIV with the Greek term [size=+1]ponhrou[/size] in [size=+1]a[/size] B D Z 0170 l 547, many Latin translations and numerous Fathers. Metzger notes regarding the reading,

The absence of any ascription in the early and important representatives of the Alexandrian ([size=+1]a[/size] B), the Western (D and most of the Old Latin), and the pre-Caesarean (_f_1) types of text, as well as early patristic commentaries on the Lord’s Prayer (those of Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian) suggests that an ascription, usually in a threefold form, was composed (perhaps on the basis of 1 Chr 29.11-13) in order to adapt the Prayer for liturgical use in the early church.*​
When we look at the longer ending we discover a number of variants. Some omit “and the power,” one omits “and the glory,” some omit “the kingdom and,” and some add a Trinitarian formula, “of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” This kind of “variant cluster” is a sure sign of a later addition. Yet verse 13 has become so traditional that to question its originality is often construed as engaging in the most rank kind of “liberalism.”

---------

*Bruce Metzger, _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_ (United Bible Societies, 1975), pages, 16-17.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 31, 2007)

*Dean Burgon's defense*

The following is taken from John William Burgon’s, _The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels_ (Bible for Today, reprint), pages 81-88. [This book is also available online at CCEL.]

*CHAPTER VI, Accidental Causes of Corruption – Liturgical Influence*

Indeed, the Ancient Liturgy of the Church has frequently exercised a corrupting influence on 
the text of Scripture. Having elsewhere considered St. Luke’s version of the LORD’S Prayer [1], I will in this place discuss the genuineness of the doxology with which the LORD’S Prayer concludes in St. Matt. vi. 13,— [size=+1]oti sou/ estin h basileia kai h dunamij kai h doxa eij touj aiwnaj amhn[/size] — words which for 360 years have been rejected by critical writers as spurious, notwithstanding St. Paul’s unmistakable recognition of them in 2 Tim. iv. 18,— which alone, one would have thought, should have sufficed to preserve them from molestation. 

The essential note of primitive antiquity at all events these fifteen words enjoy in perfection, being met with in all copies of the Peshitto:—and this is a far weightier consideration than the fact that they are absent from most of the Latin copies. Even of these however four (k f g1 q) recognize the doxology, which is also found in Cureton’s Syriac and the Sahidic version; the Gothic, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Harkleian, Palestinian, Erpenius’ Arabic, and the Persian of Tawos; as well as in the [size=+1]Didach,[/size] [Didache] (with variations); Apostolical Constitutions (iii. 18–vii. 25 with variations); in St. Ambrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24), Caesarius (Dial. i. 29). Chrysostom comments on the words without suspicion, and often quotes them (In Orat. Dom., also see Horn. in Matt. xiv. 13): as does Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 24). See also Opus Imperfectum (Hom. in Matt. xiv), Theophylact on this place, and Euthymius Zigabenus (in Matt. vi. 13 and C. Massal. Anath. 7). And yet their true claim to be accepted as inspired is of course based on the consideration that they are found in ninety-nine out of a hundred of the Greek copies, including Φ and Σ of the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth centuries. What then is the nature of the adverse evidence with which they have to contend and which is supposed to be fatal to their claims? 

Four uncial MSS. ([size=+1]a[/size]BDZ), supported by five cursives of bad character (I, 17 which gives [size=+1]amhn[/size], 118, 130, 209), and, as we have seen, all the Latin copies but four, omit these words; which, it is accordingly assumed, must have found their way surreptitiously into the text of all the other copies in existence. But let me ask,—Is it at all likely, or rather is it any way credible, that in a matter like this, all the MSS. in the world but nine should have become corrupted? No hypothesis is needed to account for one more instance of omission in copies which exhibit a mutilated text in every page. But how will men pretend to explain an interpolation universal as the present; which may be traced as far back as the second century; which has established itself without appreciable variety of reading in all the MSS.; which has therefore found its way from the earliest time into every part of Christendom; is met with in all the Lectionaries, and in all the Greek Liturgies; and has so effectually won the Church’s confidence that to this hour it forms part of the public and private devotions of the faithful all over the world?

One and the same reply has been rendered to this inquiry ever since the days of Erasmus. A note in the Complutensian Polyglott (1514) expresses it with sufficient accuracy. ‘In the Greek copies, after _And deliver us from evil, follows For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever_. But it is to be noted that in the Greek liturgy, after the choir has said _And deliver us from evil_, it is the Priest who responds as above: and those words, according to the Greeks, the priest alone may pronounce. This makes it probable that the words in question are no integral part of the LORD’S Prayer: but that certain copyists inserted them in error, supposing, from their use in the liturgy, that they formed part of the text.’ In other words, they represent that men’s ears had grown so fatally familiar with this formula from its habitual use in the liturgy, that at last they assumed it to be part and parcel of the LORD’S Prayer. The same statement has been repeated _ad nauseam_ by ten generations of critics for 360 years. The words with which our SAVIOUR closed His pattern prayer are accordingly rejected as an interpolation resulting from the liturgical practice of the primitive Church. And this slipshod account of the matter is universally acquiesced in by learned and unlearned readers alike at the present day.

From an examination of above fifty ancient oriental liturgies, it is found then that though the utmost variety prevails among them, yet that _not one_ of them exhibits the evangelical formula as it stands in St. Matt. vi. 13; while in some instances the divergences of expression are even extraordinary. Subjoined is what may perhaps be regarded as the typical eucharistic formula, derived from the liturgy which passes as Chrysostom’s. Precisely the same form recurs in the office which is called after the name of Basil: and it is essentially reproduced by Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, and pseudo-Caesarius; while something very like it is found to have been in use in more of the Churches of the East.

‘_For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory_, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, now and always and _for ever_ and ever. _Amen_.’

But as every one sees at a glance, such a formula as the foregoing,—with its ever-varying terminology of praise,—its constant reference to the blessed Trinity,—its habitual [size=+1]nun kai aei[/size] [now and always],—and its invariable [size=+1]eij touj aiwnaj twn aiwnwn[/size] [for ever and ever], (which must needs be of very high antiquity, for it is mentioned by Irenaeus, and may be as old as 2 Tim. iv. 18 itself,)—the doxology, I say, which formed part of the Church’s liturgy, though transcribed 10,000 times, could never by possibility have resulted in the unvarying doxology found in MSS. of St. Matt. vi. 13,—‘_For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen._’ 

On the other hand, the inference from a careful survey of so many Oriental liturgies is inevitable. The universal prevalence of a doxology of some sort at the end of the LORD’S Prayer; the general prefix ‘for thine’; the prevailing mention therein of ‘the kingdom and the power and the glory’; the invariable reference to Eternity:—all this constitutes a weighty corroboration of the genuineness of the form in St. Matthew. Eked out with a confession of faith in the Trinity, and otherwise amplified as piety or zeal for doctrinal purity suggested, every liturgical formula of the kind is clearly derivable from the form of words in St. Matt. vi. 13. In no conceivable way, on the other hand, could that briefer formula have resulted from the practice of the ancient Church. The thing, I repeat, is simply impossible. 

What need to point out in conclusion that the Church’s peculiar method of reciting the LORD’S Prayer in the public liturgy does notwithstanding supply the obvious and sufficient explanation of all the adverse phenomena of the case? It was the invariable practice from the earliest time for the Choir to break off at the words ‘But deliver us from evil.’ They never pronounced the doxology. The doxology must for that reason have been omitted by the critical owner of the archetypal copy of St. Matthew from which nine extant Evangelia, Origen, and the Old Latin version originally derived their text. This is the sum of the matter. There can be no simpler solution of the alleged difficulty. That Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose recognize no more of the LORD’S Prayer than they found in their Latin copies, cannot create surprise. The wonder would have been if they did. 

Much stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the Greek Fathers concerning the doxology although they wrote expressly on the LORD’S Prayer; as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus. Those who have attended most to such subjects will however bear me most ready witness, that it is never safe to draw inferences of the kind proposed from the silence of the ancients. What if they regarded a doxology, wherever found, as hardly a fitting subject for exegetical comment? But however their silence is to be explained, it is at least quite certain that the reason of it is not because their copies of St. Matthew were unfurnished with the doxology. Does any one seriously imagine that in A. D. 650, when Maximus wrote, Evangelia were, in this respect, in a different state from what they are at present? 

The sum of what has been offered may be thus briefly stated:—The textual perturbation observable at St. Matt. vi. 13 is indeed due to a liturgical cause, as the critics suppose. But then it is found that not the great bulk of the Evangelia, but only Codd. aBDZ 1, 17, 118, 130, 209, have been victims of the corrupting influence. As usual, I say, it is the few, not the many copies, which have been led astray. Let the doxology at the end of the LORD’S Prayer be therefore allowed to retain its place in the text without further molestation. Let no profane hands be any more laid on these fifteen precious words of the LORD Jesus Christ.

There yet remains something to be said on the same subject for the edification of studious readers; to whom the succeeding words are specially commended. They are requested to keep their attention sustained, until they have read what immediately follows.

The history of the rejection of these words is in a high degree instructive. It dates from 1514,when the Complutensian editors, whilst admitting that the words were found in their Greek copies, banished them from the text solely in deference to the Latin version. In a marginal annotation they started the hypothesis that the doxology is a liturgical interpolation. But how is that possible, seeing that the doxology is commented on by Chrysostom? ‘We presume,’ they say, ‘that this corruption of the original text must date from an antecedent period.’ The same adverse sentence, supported by the same hypothesis, was reaffirmed by Erasmus, and on the same grounds; but in his editionof the N.T. he suffered the doxology to stand. As the years have rolled out, and Codexes DBZa have successively come to light, critics have waxed bolder and bolder in giving their verdict. First, Grotius, Hammond, Walton; then Mill and Grabe; next Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach; lastly Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers have denounced the precious words as spurious.

But how does it appear that tract of time has strengthened the case against the doxology? Since 1514, scholars have become acquainted with the Peshitto version; which by its emphatic verdict, effectually disposes of the evidence borne by all but three of the Old Latin copies. The [size=+1]Didach,[/size] of
the first or second century, the Sahidic version of the third century, the Apostolic Constitutions (2), follow on the same side. Next, in the fourth century come Chrysostom, Ambrose, ps.-Caesarius, the Gothic version. After that Isidore, the Ethiopic, Cureton’s Syriac. The Harkleian, Armenian, Georgian, and other versions, with Chrysostom (2), the Opus Imperfectum, Theophylact, and Euthymius (2), bring up the rear. Does any one really suppose that two Codexes of the fourth century (Ba), which are even notorious for their many omissions and general accuracy, are any adequate set-off against such an amount of ancient evidence? L and 33, generally the firm allies of BD and the Vulgate, forsake them at St. Matt. vi. 13: and dispose effectually of the adverse testimony of D and Z, which are also balanced by [size=+1]F[/size] and [size=+1]S[/size]. But at this juncture the case for rejecting the doxology breaks down: and when it is discovered that every other uncial and every other cursive in existence may be appealed to in its support, and that the story of its liturgical origin proves to be a myth,— what must be the verdict of an impartial mind on a survey of the entire evidence? The whole matter may be conveniently restated thus:—Liturgical use has indeed been the cause of a depravation of the text at St. Matt. vi. 13; but it proves on inquiry to be the very few MSS.,—not the very many,—which have been depraved.

Nor is any one at liberty to appeal to a yet earlier period than is attainable by existing liturgical evidence; and to suggest that then the doxology used by the priest may have been the same with that which is found in the ordinary text of St. Matthew’s Gospel. This may have been the case or it may not. Meanwhile, the hypothesis, which fell to the ground when the statement on which it rested was disproved, is not now to be built up again on a mere conjecture. But if the fact could be ascertained,—and I am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing is possible,—I should regard it only as confirmatory of the genuineness of the doxology. For why should the liturgical employment of the last fifteen words of the LORD’S Prayer be thought to cast discredit on their genuineness? In the meantime, the undoubted fact, that for an indefinitely remote period the LORD’S Prayer was not publicly recited by the people further than ‘But deliver us from evil,’— a doxology of some sort being invariably added, but pronounced by the priest alone,—this clearly ascertained fact is fully sufficient to account for a phenomenon so ordinary [found indeed so commonly throughout St. Matthew, to say nothing of occurrences in the other Gospels] as really not to require particular explanation, viz. the omission of the last half of St. Matthew vi. 13 from Codexes [size=+1]a[/size]BDZ.

Footnotes:

[1] _The Revision Revised_, 34-6. 
[2] See _The Traditional Text_, p. 104.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 31, 2007)

*E.F. Hills' defense*

[The following portion is from Harvard text critic Dr. Edward F. Hills’, CHAPTER SIX - of _The King James Version Defended_]


*3. The Conclusion Of The Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:13b)*

Modern English versions are "rich in omissions," (to borrow a phrase from Rendel Harris). (23) Time and again the reader searches in them for a familiar verse only to find that it has been banished to the footnotes. And one of the most familiar of the verses to be so treated is Matt. 6:13b, the doxology with which the Lord's Prayer concludes.

*(a) External Evidence in Favor of Matt. 6:13b*

_For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever,_ Amen (Matt. 6:13b). This conclusion of the Lord's Prayer is found in almost all the Greek New Testament manuscripts (according to Legg, (24) in all but ten), including W (4th or 5th century) and Sigma and Phi (both 6th century). It is also found in the _Apostolic Constitutions,_ (25) a 4th century document, and receives further support from Chrysostom (345- 407) (26) who comments on it and quotes it frequently, and from Isidore of Pelusiurn (370 - 440), (27) who quotes it. But, in spite of this indisputable testimony in its favor, it is universally rejected by modern critics. Is this unanimous disapproval in accord with the evidence?

*(b) Is the Conclusion of the Lord's Prayer a Jewish Formula?*

Matt. 6: 13b is usually regarded as a Jewish prayer-formula that the early Christians took up and used to provide a more fitting termination for the Lord's Prayer, which originally, it is said, ended abruptly with _but deliver us from evil_. According to W. Michaelis (1948), for example, "It (Matt. 6:13b) is obviously modeled after Jewish prayer-formulas, cf. 1 Chron 29:11." (28)

This seems, however a most improbable way to account for the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer. For if the early Christians had felt the need of something which would provide a smoother ending to this familiar prayer, would they deliberately have selected for that purpose a Jewish prayer-formula in which the name of Jesus does not appear? Even a slight study of the New Testament reveals the difficulty of this hypothesis, for if there was one thing in which the early Christians were united it was in their emphasis on the name of Jesus. Converts were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38); miracles were performed in this name (Acts 4:10); by this name alone was salvation possible (Acts 4:12); early Christians were known as those who "called upon this name" (Acts 9:21). Paul received his apostleship "for the sake of His name" (Rom. 1:5), and John wrote his Gospel in order that the readers "might have life through His name" (John 20:31). Is it probable then, (is it at all possible) that these primitive Christians, who on all other occasions were ever mindful of their Saviour's name, should have forgotten it so strangely when selecting a conclusion for a prayer which they regarded as having fallen from His lips? Can it be that they deliberately decided to end the Lord's Prayer with a Jewish formula which makes no mention of Christ?

It is a fact, however, that the Lord's Prayer concludes with a doxology in which the name of Christ is not mentioned. Can this surprising fact be explained? Not, we repeat, on the supposition that this conclusion is spurious. For if the early Christians had invented this doxology or had adopted it from contemporary non-Christian usage, they would surely have included in it or inserted into it their Saviour's name. There is therefore only one explanation of the absence of that adorable name from the concluding doxology of the Lord's Prayer, and this is that this doxology is not spurious but a genuine saying of Christ, uttered before He had revealed unto His disciples His deity and so containing no mention of Himself. At the time He gave this model prayer He deemed it sufficient to direct the praises of His followers toward the Father, knowing that as they grew in their comprehension of the mysteries of their faith their enlightened minds would prompt them so to adore Him also. And the similarity of this doxology to 1 Chron. 29:11 is quite understandable. Might not the words which David used in praise of God be fittingly adapted to the same purpose by One who knew Himself to be the messianic Son of David?

*(c) The Testimony of the Ancient Versions and of the Didache*

The concluding doxology of the Lord's Prayer is not without considerable testimony in its favor of a very ancient sort. It is found in three Syriac versions, the Peshitta, the Harclean, and the Palestinian. Whether the doxology occurred in the Sinaitic Syriac also is not certain, for the last part of the Lord's Prayer is missing from this manuscript. It is found, however, in the Curetonian manuscript, the other representative of the Old Syriac in the following form, _Because Thine is the kingdom and the glory, for ever and ever, Amen._ The Sahidic also has the doxology of the Lord's Prayer, and so do some manuscripts of the slightly younger Bohairic. In the Sahidic it runs like this, _Because Thine is the power and the glory, unto the ages, Amen._ And in the Old Latin manuscript k (which is generally thought to contain the version in its oldest form) the Lord's Prayer ends thus, _Because to Thee is the power for ever and ever._ And the doxology is also found in its customary form in four other Old Latin manuscripts.

Thus the doxology of the Lord's Prayer occurs in five manuscripts of the Old Latin (including the best one), in the Sahidic, and in all the extant Syriac versions. Normally the agreement of three such groups of ancient witnesses from three separate regions would be regarded as an indication of the genuineness of the reading on which they thus agreed. Hort ( 1881 ), (29) however, endeavored to escape the force of this evidence by suggesting that the doxologies found (1) in k, (2) in the Sahidic version, (3) in the Syriac versions and the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts were three independent developments which had no connection with each other. But by this suggestion Hort multiplied three-fold the difficulty mentioned above. If it is difficult to believe that the early Christians chose for their most familiar prayer a conclusion which made no mention of Christ it is thrice as difficult to believe that they did this three times independently in three separate regions. Surely it is easier to suppose that these three doxologies are all derived from an original doxology uttered by Christ and that the variations in wording are due to the liturgical use of the Lord's Prayer, which will be described presently.

_The Didache (Teaching) of the Twelve Apostles_, a work generally regarded as having been written in the first half of the 2nd century, also bears important witness to the doxology of the Lord's Prayer. This ancient document was not known until 1883, when Bryennios, a Greek Catholic bishop, published it from a copy which he had discovered at Constantinople in 1875. It is a manual of Church instruction in two parts, the first being a statement of Christian conduct to be taught to converts before baptism, and the second a series of directions for Christian worship. Here the following commandment is given concerning prayer. _And do not pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, pray thus: Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, as in heaven so also upon earth; give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for Thine is the power and the glory for ever._ (30)

Here this early-2nd-century writer claims to have taken this model prayer from the Gospel (of Matthew). Is it not reasonable to believe that he took the whole prayer from Matthew, doxology and all? Who would ever have guessed that this ancient author took the preceding portions of the prayer from Matthew but the doxology from _contemporary ecclesiastical usage?_ Yet this is the strange hypothesis of Michaelis and others who have come to the Didache with their minds firmly made up beforehand to reject the doxology of the Lord's Prayer. In support of his view Michaelis appeals to the absence of the words _kingdom_ and _Amen_ from the Didache, but surely these minor verbal differences are not sufficient to justify his contention that the doxology of the Didache was not taken from Matthew. And perhaps it is permissible to point out once more that if the doxology had been taken from contemporary ecclesiastical usage it would have contained the name of Christ, because the other prayers in the Didache, which _were_ taken from contemporary ecclesiastical usage, all end with a reference to the Saviour.

*(d) The Liturgical Use of the Lord's Prayer*

But someone may ask why the doxology of the Lord's Prayer is absent from certain New Testament documents if it was actually a portion of the original Gospel of Matthew. An inspection of Legg's critical edition of this Gospel (1940) discloses that the doxology is omitted by _Aleph B D S_ and by six minuscule manuscripts. It is also omitted by all the manuscripts of the Vulgate and by nine manuscripts of the Old Latin. And certain Greek and Latin Fathers omit it in their expositions of the Lord's Prayer. Thus Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine make no mention of it. But these omissions find their explanation in the manner in which the Lord's Prayer was used in the worship services of the early Church.

From very early times the Lord's Prayer was used liturgically in the Church service. This fact is brought home to us by an inspection of C. A. Swainson's volume, _The Greek Liturgies_ (1884). (31) Here the learned author published the most ancient Greek liturgies from the oldest manuscripts available. In the 8th-century _Liturgy of St. Basil_, after the worshipping people had repeated the body of the Lord's Prayer, the priest concluded it with these words, _for Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory of the Father_, and the people responded, _Amen._ In two other 8th-century liturgies the wording is the same, except that the doxology repeated by the priest is merely, _for Thine is the kingdom._ Later the doxologies which the priests were directed to pronounce became more and more elaborate. In the 11th-century _Liturgy of St. Chrysostom_, after the people had repeated the Lord's Prayer down to the doxology, the priest was to conclude as follows: _for Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, now and always, and for ever and ever_.

Thus we see that from very earliest times in the worship services of the Church the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer was separated from the preceding portions of it. The body of the Prayer was repeated by the people, the conclusion by the priest. Moreover, due to this liturgical use, the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer was altered in various ways in the effort to make it more effective. This, no doubt, was the cause of the minor variations in the doxology which we find in the Didache, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Old Latin manuscript _k_. And furthermore, a distinction soon grew up between the body of the Lord's Prayer and the conclusion of it, a distinction which was made more sharp by the occurrence of the Lord's Prayer in Luke (given by Christ for the second time, on a different occasion) without the concluding doxology. Because the doxology was always separated from the rest of the Lord's Prayer, it began to be regarded by some Christians as a man-made response and not part of the original prayer as it fell from the lips of Christ. Doubtless for this reason it is absent from the ten Greek manuscripts mentioned above and from most of the manuscripts of the Latin versions. And it may also be for this reason that some of the Fathers do not mention it when commenting on the Lord's Prayer.

NOTES (link)

Note 23 Used in regard to the Sinaitic Syriac, _Contemporary Review_ November, 1894.
Note 24 _Evangelium Secundum Matthaeum_, Oxford, 1940.
Note 25 _Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum_, F. X. Funk, Paderborn, 1905, vol. 1, pp. 213, 410.
Note 26 MPG, vol. 51 col. 48; vol. 57-58, cols. 282, 301.
Note 27 MPG, vol. 78 col. 1076.
Note 28 _Prophezei_, W. Michaelis, Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1948, p. 331.
Note 29 _N. T. In The Original Greek_, vol. 2, Introduction and Appendix, p. 9. By Dr. Hort.
Note 30 LCL, _Apostolic Fathers_, vol. 1, p. 320.
Note 31 _The Greek Liturgies_, London: 1884, pp. 85, 93, 97, 135, 167, 200, 308-309.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 31, 2007)

*Dr. Thomas Holland's defense*

[A lot of Dr. Holland’s material  at this site (scroll down a little), which has permission to publish it online.]

The following excerpt on Matt 6:13b is from Dr. Thomas Holland's _Crowned With Glory_ ©2000.

*Matthew 6:13 - "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever."*


_And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen._​
The passage in question is the conclusion of what is commonly known as _The Lord's Prayer_. The prayer ends with the doxology, _"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."_ This phrase is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, the Greek Textus Receptus and Majority Text, and is the reading of early English versions, the KJV, and the NKJV. It is not found in the main body of the Critical Text or most modern versions.

Some have argued that the prayer is the same as the one found in Luke 11:2-4. In that passage the doxology does not appear. It is then suggested that scribes who had a habit of harmonizing various passages in the four Gospels did so with this prayer. [1] While the two passages are similar in content it is doubtful they are the same prayer. The passage in Matthew is given for the multitude when Jesus preached His celebrated _Sermon on the Mount_ The passage in Luke is given specifically for the disciples of the Lord when asked how they should pray. Similarity, it should be remembered, does not mean sameness. Nor is it a surprise to find this prayer, or at least a form of it, appearing on more than one occasion.

The question then arises: "Did the prayer in Matthew originally contain the concluding phrase as found in the Traditional Text?" Among the Greek uncials it is found in W (fifth century), L (eighth century), 0233 (eighth century), K (ninth century), D (ninth century), Q (ninth century), and P (tenth century). It is found in the majority of all Greek minuscules such as: 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2174 (dating from the ninth century to the twelfth century). It is also found in the majority of all existing Greek lectionaries. Therefore, the weight of the Greek witnesses argues for its inclusion and validity.

It is likewise found in several ancient translations such as some Old Latin manuscripts, the Old Syrian, and some Coptic versions. The Syriac Peshitta (second/third century [2]) reads, "And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever: Amen." [3] Therefore, the reading embraces antiquity as well as geographical support.

The passage also has patristic support. The distinguished orthodox father of the fourth century, John Chrysostom, cites this passage. He writes, "by bringing to our remembrance the King under whom we are arrayed, and signifying him to be more powerful than all. 'For thine,' saith he, 'is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory'." [4] The oldest witness, which outdates all Greek manuscripts containing Matthew chapter six, is the _Didache_ (otherwise known as the _Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_). This ancient catechism dates to the early second century, shortly after 100 AD, and contains a form of _The Lord's Prayer_:

But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites; for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but do ye fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday). Neither pray as the hypocrites; but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Thrice in the day thus pray. [5]​
Finally, in his studies on old papyri, Dr. George Milligan includes a sixth century prayer that incorporates the prayer of Matthew 6:13. Despite the fact that this papyrus is badly worn, it clearly contains the phrase in question. [6] The textual evidence for the traditional reading is both ancient and massive, and should be retained in our English translations.

----------

Notes

[1] Bruce M. Metzger, _The Text Of The New Testament_ (third ed., Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1973), 197.
[2] Textual scholar F. C. Burkitt argued that the Peshitta did not exist before the fifth century. Although most scholars no longer hold to Burkitt's theory, most date the Peshitta to this time period. Others, such as E. Hills and A. Voobus have placed the origin of the Peshitta in the second century.
[3] James Murdock, _The Syriac New Testament_ (Boston: H. L. Hastings, 1896), 9.
[4] St. Chrysostom, "Homily XIX," _The Preaching of Chrysostom_ (ed. Joroslav Pelikan, Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 145.
[5] _Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_, 8:1
[6] George Milligan, _Sections From The Greek Papyri_ (Cambridge: University Press, 1912), 132-134. Interestingly, Dr. Milligan notes of this papyri that it contains, "a passage which some may be tempted to quote in support of the A.V. rendering of Mt. VI.13." Since the phrase is included in this personal prayer, Dr. Milligan is correct in both his understanding of the origin of the quote and in its support for the _Authorized Version_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 31, 2007)

*Will Kinney's & Martin A. Shue's defenses*

Will Kinney on *Matthew 6:13*

What is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer ends with these words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Out of about 1000 remaining manuscripts these words are found in all but 10, or a ratio of 100 to 1. They are included in the Didache 150 AD, and the Diatessaron 170 AD (200 years before Sinaticus and Vaticanus) . They are also found in the following ancient Bible versions: The Old Latin 200 AD, the Syriac Peshitta 250 AD, Harclean, Curetonian, Palestinian, Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Ethiopic. However both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit them and the NIV omits them while the NASB puts them in brackets.


-----------

*Matthew 6:13* 
A Defense of the Doxology
by Martin A. Shue

_And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen._​
From the time most of us were kids we were taught The Lord’s Prayer, reciting it over and over until at last we knew it by heart. Fortunately for us, at that time we were not encumbered by the opinions of the ‘scholars’ concerning this wonderful example of prayer that the Lord gave to us. Sadly, it has become "fashionable" among our modern day textual critics to label the Doxology of the Lord’s Prayer (i.e. Matt. 6:13b) as a spurious interpolation. Because of this most inauspicious treatment of this verse it has been omitted from the Nestle/Aland and United Bible Society’s Greek Text. Naturally, since virtually all the modern versions are based on these two texts it, viz. Matt. 6:13, is omitted from the modern versions as well. A few of the modern translations read:

*New International Version* - And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'

*New American Standard Version* - `And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

*New Living Translation* - And don't let us yield to temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

*New Revised Standard Version* - And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.

As you can easily see the modern versions abruptly end the Lord’s Prayer with "evil (one)" completely omitting the Doxology. It is this phrase in particular (i.e. "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen") that we want to discuss in this article.

James White made the following comments concerning this passage of Scripture:

The "Lord’s Prayer" of Matthew 6 is an excellent text for illustrating how scribal expansion took place in the context of a passage that was deeply ingrained in the Christian liturgy from the earliest times. Not only does the "long ending" in verse 13 provide a valuable insight into the habits of the scribes, but the many efforts at harmonizing Luke’s much abbreviated version in Luke 11:2-4 are of great interest as well (White, _The King James Only Controversy_, p. 252)​
These are some interesting assertions on the part of Mr. White. The only problem is they are simply that—ASSERTIONS. Mr. White offers no real proof that what he is hypothesizing is actually what happened here in Matt. 6:13. White goes on to comment that in some of the manuscripts (MSS) that do contain the Doxology do so with slight variance. White attempts to use this as proof that it was an addition and not an omission by stating, "This kind of ‘variant cluster’ is a sure sign of a later addition (Ibid)." While this conjecture may conveniently serve White’s purpose of trying to discredit the authenticity of Matt. 6:13b it is poor scholarship at best. A simple examination of the Nestle/Aland 27th edition Greek Text would show that there are an extensive amount of variant readings which are supported by modern scholarship (White included). Surely Mr. White is not advocating that we throw out all these passages because there exists a "variant cluster" is he? In passing, I would like to make some comments regarding White’s statement about "Luke’s much abbreviated version in Luke 11:2-4". The "scholarship only" crowd is renowned for preferring the "abbreviated" text. What White ‘failed’ to point out is that Luke’s text WAS the abbreviated text; however, it must not have been abbreviated enough for them (NIV, NASV, NRSV, et al.) because they once again took out their textual scythe and removed *20* words from Luke’s "abbreviated version" (viz. "Our...which art in Heaven...thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth...but deliver us from evil.").

In his book, _The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text Vol. II_, Dean John William Burgon sets forth in most exquisite fashion the reason the Doxology is wanting in a few of the MSS. Burgon clearly demonstrates how that Liturgical use has been the cause of this corruption. It was common in the Liturgy for the choir to recite the Lord’s Prayer down to "And deliver us from evil". At that point the choir would fall silent and the priest would then end the prayer with the words, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Due to this practice it is quite easy to see how the Doxology has been omitted from a few of the ancient MSS. As Burgon pointed out "it proves on inquiry to be the very few MSS.,--not the very many,--which have been depraved (Ibid, p.87)." Most likely the reason Mr. White is confused about this issue is because that is the way he was taught. The ‘scholars’ for the last 400 yrs. or so have been influenced greatly by an erroneous note in the Complutensian Polyglott (1514). The note reads as follows:

In the Greek copies, after _And deliver us from evil_, follows _For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever_. But it is to be noted that in the Greek liturgy, after the choir has said _And deliver us from evil_, it is the Priest who responds as above: and those words, according to the Greeks, the priest alone may pronounce. This makes it probable that the words in question are no integral part of the LORD’S Prayer: but that certain copyists inserted them in error, supposing, from their use in the liturgy, that they formed part of the text.​
So as you can see White was only parroting what he had read or either what he had been taught. Burgon established that this hypothesis was incorrect and showed that had this been true it would have no doubt resulted in the "very many" MSS. omitting the phrase while the "very few MSS." would have added it. The evidence just does not support such a hypothesis---it didn’t in 1514 and it doesn’t today as we shall soon see. The Dean summed it up this way, "In no conceivable way, on the other hand, could that briefer formula have resulted from the practice of the ancient Church. The thing, I repeat, is simply impossible (Burgon, _The Causes of Corruption_, pp.. 84-85)."

Now we will move on into the external evidence for and against Matt. 6:13b. James White gives the evidence for omitting the Doxology as, "Aleph, B, D, Z, 0170, f1, 205, l, 547, many Latin translations and numerous Fathers (White, _King James Only Controversy_, p. 252)." It is scarcely believable that the modern versions have omitted these precious words of our Saviour on such scanty evidence. In his book, White doesn’t dare present his readers with the evidence for retaining this reading. Had he done so it would have revealed the modern versions as the frauds that they are.

What White failed to tell his readers follows. The Doxology is found in uncials K (9th century), L (8th century), W (5th century), S (Sigma) (6th century), F (Phi) (6th century), E (8th century), M (9th century, G (9th century), U (9th century), V (9th century), D (Delta) (9th century), Q (Theta) (9th century), and P (Pi) (9th century). It is also found in these minuscules (or cursives)-- 13, 28, 33, 69, 124, 174, 230, 346, 543, 565, 700, 788, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1079, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1365, 1546, 1646, 2148 and 2174 (9th to 15th century). In addition to these manuscripts (MSS.) it is also found in every Lectionary except one (i.e. Lectionary 547) and four Old Latin MSS., viz. k, f, g , and q. As you can see the Greek MSS. overwhelmingly attest to the authenticity of the Doxology of the Lord’s Prayer. With this type of evidence it is unthinkable that the modern versions would even consider omitting this phrase let alone actually omitting it as they have done.

Matt. 6:13b also receives some very strong attestation from ancient documents and versions. Of the versions it is validated by the Peshitta (2nd century), the Coptic (3rd century), the Sahidic (3rd century), the Gothic (4th century), the Armenian (4th century), the Georgian (5th century), the Ethiopic (6th century), the Harkleian (6th century), the Palestinian (6th century), and the Curetonian Syriac (6th century). In addition to these versions it receives support from Tatians Diatessaron (2nd century), the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century), and the Didache (Didach). Briefly we want to take a look at the Didache, also know as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. The Didache is dated by many to just shortly after 100 AD. and contains a form of the Lord’s Prayer that would certainly support the reading found in the KJB.

But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites; for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week; but do ye fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday). Neither pray as the hypocrites; but as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, thus pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Thrice in the day thus pray. (Didache, _Concerning Fasting and Prayer (The Lord’s Prayer)_, viii)​
The phrase is also quoted by numerous church Fathers without any suspicion whatsoever.

John Chrysostom writes:

He again encourages and raises our spirits, by bringing to our remembrance the King under whom we are arrayed, and signifying Him to be more powerful than all. "For Thine," saith He, "is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory (Chrysostom (4th century), _Homily XIX_, x)."​
In addition to the mass of evidence already listed for the reading of the KJB we can add the support of the Early English Versions.

*Tyndale 1534*- And leade us not into temptacion: but delyver us from evell. For thyne is the kyngedome and the power, and the glorye for ever. Amen.

*Geneva 1557*- And lead us not into tentation, but deliuer us from euil. For thyne is the kingdome, and the power, and the glorie for euer. Amen.

Given the massive amount of evidence that clearly points to the fact that the Doxology of the Lord’s Prayer is authentic it is utterly absurd that the modern versions have removed these precious words of our Saviour’s. However, this verse stands a constant reminder that the modern versions cannot be trusted when it comes to Biblical preservation. They have repeatedly shown themselves to be frauds in their claims of being the Holy Bible. The Authorized Version is once again shown to be far superior to the modern versions. We close this article with a quote from John Calvin:

Moreover, there is subjoined the reason for our great boldness in asking and confidence of obtaining, (sec. 11, 36.) Although this does not exist in the Latin copies, yet as it accords so well with the whole, we cannot think of omitting it. The words are, *THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER.* Here is the calm and firm assurance of our faith. For were our prayers to be commended to God by our own worth, who would venture even to whisper before him? Now, however wretched we may be, however unworthy, however devoid of commendation, we shall never want a reason for prayer, nor a ground of confidence, since the kingdom, power, and glory, can never be wrested from our Father. (John Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Vol. III, Of Prayer 20:47)​
-------

[size=+1]*I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil.*[/size] Psalms 119:162​
[End of Shue's article]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Feb 8, 2008)

Burgeon's argument is very interesting:



> the doxology, I say, which formed part of the Church’s liturgy, though transcribed 10,000 times, could never by possibility have resulted in the unvarying doxology found in MSS. of St. Matt. vi. 13,—‘For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.’



In other words,, if I am reading him correctly, it is too much of a stretch to believe that the liturgy could have 'accidentally' given birth to Matt 6:13.


----------



## etexas (Feb 8, 2008)

Thank you Steve. But of course the KJV Lord's Prayer is the REAL Lord's Prayer!


----------



## Grymir (Feb 9, 2008)

Mega  ! Nice Thread. Length is nothing when it is quality. You would think that those early church fathers using would silence the mouths of babes, but nooo!


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 9, 2008)

Interesting thread. Part of the argument by textual critics is that a first century document would not have included a doxology of this kind. They claim it reflects a later ecclesiastical context. But, how do they explain the _Didache_ having it???

As a CT user, I get that representatives of the Alexandrian (א B) and the Western (D and most of the Old Latin) texts do not have the doxology. Still, it can be found in K L W Δ Θ Π f*13 al it in the standard KJV-style triple strophic form. It is a little hard to understand the presence in the _Didache_ at such an early date if it is not authentic. (???)


----------



## KMK (Feb 9, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Hort ( 1881 ), (29) however, endeavored to escape the force of this evidence by suggesting that the doxologies found (1) in k, (2) in the Sahidic version, (3) in the Syriac versions and the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts were three independent developments which had no connection with each other. But by this suggestion Hort multiplied three-fold the difficulty mentioned above. If it is difficult to believe that the early Christians chose for their most familiar prayer a conclusion which made no mention of Christ *it is thrice as difficult to believe that they did this three times independently in three separate regions.* Surely it is easier to suppose that these three doxologies are all derived from an original doxology uttered by Christ and that the variations in wording are due to the liturgical use of the Lord's Prayer, which will be described presently.



Very good point.

What did Westcott and Hort think of the Didache when it was published? Are there any quotes by them?


----------



## etexas (Feb 9, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Interesting thread. Part of the argument by textual critics is that a first century document would not have included a doxology of this kind. They claim it reflects a later ecclesiastical context. But, how do they explain the _Didache_ having it???
> 
> As a CT user, I get that representatives of the Alexandrian (א B) and the Western (D and most of the Old Latin) texts do not have the doxology. Still, it can be found in K L W Δ Θ Π f*13 al it in the standard KJV-style triple strophic form. It is a little hard to understand the presence in the _Didache_ at such an early date if it is not authentic. (???)


A number of the Early Fathers wrote sermons on The Lord's Prayer, they included the doxology.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Feb 9, 2008)

Interesting article. I enjoyed it, and think there is great wisdom in Calvin's words as quoted.

"Moreover, there is subjoined the reason for our great boldness in asking and confidence of obtaining, (sec. 11, 36.) Although this does not exist in the Latin copies, yet as it accords so well with the whole, we cannot think of omitting it. The words are, THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER. Here is the calm and firm assurance of our faith. For were our prayers to be commended to God by our own worth, who would venture even to whisper before him? Now, however wretched we may be, however unworthy, however devoid of commendation, we shall never want a reason for prayer, nor a ground of confidence, since the kingdom, power, and glory, can never be wrested from our Father." (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. III, Of Prayer 20:47)

Indeed, our prayers are never to be commended to God because our worth, but through the kingdom, power, and glory of our God we may come boldly!


----------

