Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
$5.00
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored 170+ books. Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
Major Critical Texts of the New Testament
Byz RP: 2005 Byzantine Greek New Testament, Robinson & Pierpont TR1550: 1550 Stephanus New Testament Maj: The Majority Text (thousands of minuscules that display a similar text) Gries: 1774-1775 Johann Jakob Griesbach Greek New Testament Treg: 1857-1879 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles Greek New Testament Tisch: 1872 Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament WH: 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament NA28: 2012 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament UBS5: 2014 Greek New Testament NU: Both Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society SBLGNT: 2010 Greek New Testament THGNT: 2017 The Greek New Testament by Tyndale House GENTI: 2022 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear
WH NU omit doxology at end of prayer א B D Z 0170 f1
Variant 1 add αμην (“amen”) 17 vgcl
Variant 2 add “because yours is the power forever.” itk syrp
Variant 3 add “because yours is the power and the glory forever. Amen.” copsa (Didache omits αμην)
Variant 4 add “because yours is the kingdom and the glory forever. Amen.” syrc
Variant 5/TR add οτι σου εστιν η βασιλεια και η δυναμις και η δοξα εις τους αιωνας. αμην. “because yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.” L W Δ Θ 0233 f13 33 Maj syr
Variant 6 add οτι σου εστιν η βασιλεια του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος εις τους αιωνας. αμην. “because yours is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit forever. Amen.” 157 (1253)
Matthew 6:13 The Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI)
Matthew 6:13 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
13 And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one.[1]
[1] Matthew 6:13 ends with “but deliver us from the wicked one.” This is supported by the earliest and best manuscripts (א B D Z 0170 f1). Within the other extant manuscripts, there are six different additions to the end of Matthew 6:13, which is evidence against any addition at all. Within this footnote, we will deal with just one, which is found in the Textus Receptus and the King James Version, “for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen.” (L W Δ Θ 0233 f13 33 Maj syr) These later manuscripts do not outweigh the earlier Alexandrian manuscripts (א B), the Western (D), and most Old Latin, as well as other (f1) text types and the early commentaries on the Lord’s Prayer (Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian). It seems that the scribes were looking to conclude the Lord’s Prayer with an uplifting message or add additional support for the Trinity doctrine: “because yours is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit forever. Amen.” (157 1253)
Philip Comfort writes,
There are other minor variations than those listed above (see NA27 and UBS4), but these represent the six basic variations of the doxology that were added to the Lord’s Prayer. The testimony of the earliest extant witnesses reveals that the prayer concluded with a petition for deliverance from evil. The variety among the variants speaks against the genuineness of any of the additions. What is presented above shows the continual expansion of the addition—from the simple “amen” in variant 1 to the elaborate Trinitarian doxology in variant 6. In the first stage of additions, it appears that scribes used “power” and/or “glory” (probably adapted from verses such as 1 Chr 29:11; Ps 62:3 LXX; Dan 2:37; 1 Pet 4:11; Jude 25). This is the reading in the Didache, and this same ending (in transposed order—glory and power) appears at the end of the late-third century Christian prayer (see P.Oxy. 407). In the next stage, “kingdom” and “amen” were added.
The longer form probably came from the Didache (also known as “The Teaching of the Twelve”), which was written in Syria or Palestine during the early second century. The Didache was compiled from various sources that give details about the traditions of well-established church communities. This is probably why Westcott and Hort (1882, 9) could say that the “doxology originated in liturgical use in Syria, and was thence adopted into the Greek and Syriac Syrian texts of the N.T.” As such, a longer form of the Lord’s Prayer may have been in use as early as the end of the first century. This was elongated still further by the addition of “kingdom” to the wording found in the Didache: “power and glory.” This particular form—“kingdom, power, and glory”—became popular by its inclusion in TR and kjv.
Tregelles and Tischendorf were the first textual critics to omit the ending. The first English translators to exclude the ending to the Lord’s Prayer were those who produced the English Revised Version (1884) and the American Standard Version (1901). Most twentieth-century translators have done the same. The nasb, which tends to be quite conservative, is an exception. But the ending has become so ingrained in Christian tradition that it has not dropped from use in private prayers or in public worship—with the exception of the Roman Catholic churches. When reciting the Lord’s Prayer, most Christians do not stop after saying “but deliver us from evil.” Most go on to say, “For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.”
Why do people feel compelled to end with this assertive doxology? Probably for the same reason that motivated some early scribes to add it. This profound prayer invites a glorious, uplifting conclusion—especially in oral reading.
Bruce Metzger writes,
6:13 πονηροῦ. {A} [The letter {A} signifies that the text is certain.]
The ascription at the close of the Lord’s Prayer occurs in several forms. In K L W Δ Θ Π f al it is the familiar triple strophic form, whereas the Sahidic and Fayyumic (like the form quoted in the Didache) lack ἡ βασιλεία καί, the Curetonian Syriac lacks ἡ δύναμις καί, and the Old Latin k reads simply “for thine is the power for ever and ever.” Some Greek manuscripts expand “for ever” into “for ever and ever,” and most of them add “amen.” Several late manuscripts (157 225 418) append a trinitarian ascription, “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.” The same expansion occurs also at the close of the Lord’s Prayer in the liturgy that is traditionally ascribed to St. John Chrysostom.
The absence of any ascription in early and important representatives of the Alexandrian (א B), the Western (D and most of the Old Latin), and other (f ) 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. Still later scribes added “of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”—See also Joël Delobel, “The Lord’s Prayer in the Textual Tradition,” The New Testament in Early Christianity, ed. by Jean-Marie Sevrin (Louvain, 1989), pp. 293–309.
Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger,
6:13 πονηροῦ. (the Evil one/evil.) {A}
Early and important manuscripts of the Alexandrian, Western, and other types of text, as well as commentaries on the Lord’s Prayer by early Church Fathers, end the Lord’s Prayer with the word πονηροῦ in v. 13. Copyists added several different endings in order to adapt the Prayer for use in worship in the early church. Additions include the following: (a) “for yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen” (so Seg); (b) “for yours is the kingdom and the glory forever. Amen”; and (c) “for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit forever. Amen.”
Rick Brannan and Israel Loken write,
Matthew 6:13 ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ
And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
Most early manuscripts end the prayer with “the evil one,” but a few early manuscripts and related later witnesses have “the evil one, for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen.” The longer form may have been based on similar wording found in 1 Chr 29:11–13 (see Metzger and Comfort). A similarly-worded form of the Lord’s Prayer is also found in the Didache (§8.2).
Short Reminder
If we have the original words, we, in essence, have the original and; therefore, do not need the original documents.
Textual Criticism: the art and science (some would say only art) of determining the original text from variant readings exhibited by extant manuscripts.
Variant Reading(s): differing versions of a word or phrase found in two or more manuscripts within a variation unit (see below). Variant readings are also called alternate readings.
Variation Unit: any portion of text that exhibits variations in its reading between two or more different manuscripts. It is important to distinguish variation units from variant readings. Variation units are the places in the text where manuscripts disagree, and each variation unit has at least two variant readings. Setting the limits and range of a variation unit is sometimes difficult or even controversial because some variant readings affect others nearby. Such variations may be considered individually, or as elements of a single reading. One should also note that the terms “manuscript” and “witness” may appear to be used interchangeably in this context. Strictly speaking “witness” (see below) will only refer to the content of a given manuscript or fragment, which it predates to a greater or lesser extent. However, the only way to reference the “witness” is by referring to the manuscript or fragment that contains it. In this book, we have sometimes used the terminology “witness of x or y manuscript” to distinguish the content in this way.
TERMS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD OBJECTIVELY VIEW THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY FOR THE READING ACCEPTED AS THE ORIGINAL
The modal verbs are might have been (30%), may have been (40%), could have been(55%), would have been (80%),must have been (95%), which are used to show that we believe the originality of a reading is certain, probable or possible.
The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.
The letter [P] stands for Plausible (40%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading may have been original in that it is enough to accept a variant to be original and we have enough evidence for our belief. The reading may have been original but it is not probably so.
The letter [PE] stands for Preponderance of Evidence (55%), which indicates that this is a higher-level proof that the reading could have been original in that it is enough to accept as such unless another reading emerges as more probable.
The letter [CE] stands for Convincing Evidence (80%), which indicates that the evidence is an even higher-level proof that the reading surely was the original in that the evidence is enough to accept it as substantially certainunless proven otherwise.
The letter [BRD] stands for Beyond Reasonable Doubt (95%), which indicates that this is the highest level of proof: the reading must have been original in that there is no reason to doubt it. It must be understood that feeling as though we have no reason to doubt is not the same as one hundred percent absolute certainty.
NOTE: This system is borrowed from the criminal just legal terms of the United States of America, the level of certainty involved in the use of modal verbs, and Bruce Metzger in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), who borrowed his system from Johann Albrecht Bengel in his edition of the Greek New Testament (Tübingen, 1734). In addition, the percentages are in no way attempting to be explicit but rather they are nothing more than a tool to give the non-textual scholar a sense of the degree of certainty. However, this does not mean the percentages are not reflective of certainty.
SOURCES
Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994).
Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008).
