Matthew 6:13 - How Does the Lord's Prayer End? (Part 2)

          Let’s continue looking into the textual contest at the end of Matthew 6:13:  the basic question is, are the words “For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever, Amen” – ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν – part of the original text, or not? 

Matthew 6:13b in Codex L.

          As we saw in Part 1, over 98% of the Greek manuscripts that have this verse include these words (including Codex W) – but it is not included in the important manuscripts Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Bezae, the fifth-century uncial fragment 0171, and the fragmentary palimpsest Codex Z (Dublinensis, 035).  It is not supported by the core representatives of family-1, but it is included in family-13.  The Gothic version and the Armenian version (and others) have it, but most representatives of the Old Latin version, as well as the two most ancient copies of the Middle Egyptian version, do not have it.  The early patristic writers Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian (in Treatise 4), Ambrose, and Cyril of Alexandria (in Catechetical Lecture XXIII) comment on the Lord’s Prayer but do not mention this reading, and several others (Hilary of Poitiers, Caesarius, Gregory of Nyssa) do not mention it when they use this verse – but it was quoted by John Chrysostom (c. 400), and it was quoted in Apostolic Constitutions (380), and it appears to have been utilized by the author of the Didache – an exceptionally early composition (early 100s). 

          The unknown author of the Latin composition Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum (early 400s) also quoted Matthew 16:13b, in Homily 14, in a way which shows that he read it in his text of Matthew.  This reference is interesting, not only because it gives additional Latin support to the reading, but because it augments the theological range of the support for the reading; while Chrysostom was thoroughly orthodox, the author of Opus Imperfectum was not. 

          With all that in mind, we now turn to some evidence which is not featured in the usual textual apparatuses:  amulets.  The Lord’s Prayer was ubiquitously used in church-services, but it was also applied to a different purpose in some parts of the Roman Empire:  when Christians made small amulets containing snippets of Scripture, one of the most-used passages in such items – after the beginnings of each of the Gospels – was the Lord’s Prayer.  

          Let’s take a look at some of these amulets and the text(s) they contain.

          ● Papyrus Ct.YBR 4600, housed at Yale University, was made sometime in the 500s-700s.  It consists of a single sheet of papyrus, blank on the reverse side.  It contains Matthew 6:9b-13, but is torn down the middle; as a result about half of the text is not extant.  In verse 13, it appears that the word “Lord” was added after “Lead us not into temptation.”  After “But deliver us from evil,” the doxology does not appear, but rather than come to a close, the text continues with one more line, which says, “To our Lord.”  It seems debatable whether “To our Lord” should be regarded as a closing-title, or as a phrase introducing some non-extant continuation.

          ● Papyrus Oxyrhynchus LX 4010 is assigned to the 300s.  It is a liturgical prayer, and instead of beginning with “Our Father” it has an introductory portion (which cannot be confident deciphered due to extensive damage, but which seems to address God as the All-powerful Master and God of all comfort).  In v. 12, this witness reads ωσπερ instead of ως.  It does not have the doxology after “but deliver us from evil.”  After “our debtors” and “into temptation,” the remainders of two lines have been obliterated.  It appears that after writing, “but deliver us from evil,” the writer repeated the words “deliver us.”  It is possible that more text followed on another page.

          ● Á3 (Talisman 3), also known as BGU 3.954, was excavated at Herakleopolis Magna, Egypt, and is assigned to the 500s.  It contains – or contained – an apotropaic prayer (i.e., a prayer for protection and health), and it begins by addressing God as the All-powerful Master. (It is similar in this respect to P. Oxy. LX 4010.)  An individual named Silvanus prays for protection from demons, and from illness, and then introduces “the Gospel-prayer” – Matthew 6:9b-13. The word “Lord” was added after “Lead us not into temptation.”  After that, the document is damaged but enough has survived to show that it contained a doxology that included the words “the glory forever.”  This is followed by snippets from John 1:1 and Matthew 1:1 and a final petition for health.     

          (Unfortunately, as Brice Jones explains in his book New Testament Texts on Greek Amulets from Late Antiquity, this witness was part of the cargo that perished in 1899 when the ship transporting it from Egypt to Europe caught fire in the Hamburg harbor.  Fortunately the document had been meticulously described by researchers Ulrich Wilken and Charles Wessely.)

         

          ● Á6, also known as Papyrus Iandani I.16 is an Egyptian document from the 400s or 500s.  It includes the text of the Lord’s Prayer, and includes a doxology – “for yours is the glory forever and ever.”  It has other material besides the Lord’s Prayer:  it also features the opening lines of Matthew 1:1, part of Matthew 8:1 (or Luke 9:37), part of Luke 11:1-2, snippets from Psalm 90, and more – all rather garbled, but as Brice Jones has noted, Ernest Schäfer helpfully diagnosed the cause of the mix-up and rearranged the text that the novice copyist was attempting to write.   

          ● Á13, also known as Papyrus Duke inv. 778, made in the 500s, is a double-sided amulet; Psalm 91 (in Greek) is on one side and the Lord’s Prayer is on the other side.  A detailed description of this document can be found in an article in the 2004 Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists by Csaba La’da and Amphilochios Papathomas.  (For a picture and transcript, see this link.)  The words “Your will be done” and “as we forgive our debtors” are absent. The word “Lord” appears after “Lead us not into temptation” (a feature also seen in Á3).  After “Deliver us from evil,” there is an expanded doxology:  “Through the only-begotten” – at this point there is a hole in the papyrus which might have contained the contracted word “Son” – “for yours is the glory and the power and the all-holy Spirit, now, always, and forever and ever.  Amen.”  (“Amen” is written as ϘΘ, two Greek letters which have a numerical value of 99, the same as the word ἀμήν (α = 1, μ = 40, η = 8, ν = 50).  In the papyrus, the Θ is only minimally extant.)  This concluding phrase is similar to the way in which Gregory of Nyssa concluded his catechetical lecture on the Lord’s Prayer, and it also resembles a liturgical formula, which we will consider soon.

          Another witness that should not be ignored is the Gnostic composition called the Prayer of the Apostle Paul.  This text is written in Coptic on the flyleaf of Nag Hammadi Codex 1 (the Jung Codex), which is about as old as Codex Sinaiticus.  Like the texts on apotropaic amulets, this brief composition is a request for protection and health.  It contains some phrases strongly reminiscent of Saying 17 in the “Gospel of Thomas” (which, in turn, resembles First Corinthians 2:9, which is mainly an adaptation of Isaiah 64:4) and Philippians 2:9.  The Gnostic (probably Valentinian) author concludes the prayer with, “For yours is the power and the glory and the praise and the greatness, forever and ever, Amen.” 

          The Prayer of the Apostle Paul includes the request, “give healing for my body when I ask you through the Evangelist,” and although this has been interpreted as a reference to Paul, I suggest that “the Evangelist” means the same thing as “the Gospel-prayer” in Á3.

          Isidore of Pelusium (late 300s-450) also quoted the doxology, twice, in the course of commenting on the Lord’s Prayer, in his Fourth Book of Epistles, #14, To Eutonius the Deacon (cf. Migne PG Vol. 78, col. 1073 and 1076).  This is especially interesting since he resided in Alexandria before taking up monastic responsibilities at Pelusium; one would expect him to have used instead a text that agreed with the flagship manuscripts of the Alexandrian Text.

          Other evidence joins Isidore in confirming that the non-inclusion of Matthew 6:13b was not the only reading known in Egyptian transmission-lines.  Codex L and minuscules 33 and 1241 are among the MSS that support inclusion.  Minuscule 892, widely considered the most Alexandrian of all Gospels-minuscules, also includes the doxology.  

          When one considers that Sahidic and Fayummic versions support “For yours is the power and glory forever, Amen,” a case can be made that the non-inclusion of the doxology is essentially a Western reading than has Alexandrian support:  The Alexandrian witnesses À B and 0171 and Cyril have the shorter reading, as does the Middle Egyptian version; however, that seems to be the extent of support for non-inclusion among  Alexandrian witnesses.  Meanwhile, among the Western witnesses for non-inclusion are D, at least seven Old Latin copies, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, the Vulgate, and Peter Chrysologus.   

          (It may be noted that practically next door in 6:15, À is allied with mainly Western witnesses, favoring another non-inclusion (the non-inclusion of τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν.) 

         

          So:  which reading accounts for the creation of its rival?  Though this question expresses a standard text-critical canon – the paramount text-critical canon – it is in some cases an oversimplification, because some readings created by copyists (especially shorter readings) may arise due to factors that are not suggested by rival readings.  

          In the case at hand, it should be clear to everyone that the use of doxologies was very widespread, not only in the writing of personal prayers, but also in prayers offered in church-services.  The amulets provide examples of the former; the Didache provides examples of the latter.  It should also be clear that the Lord’s Prayer was subject to adaptation – sometimes via expansion, and sometimes via abridgement.  (The prayer in Matthew 6:9-13 was vulnerable to abridgement via harmonization to the prayer in Luke 11:2-4, just as the prayer in Luke was vulnerable to expansion to the prayer in Matthew 6.)  Additional examples of prayers with doxologies being offered in church-services are found in the liturgies that have been handed down from antiquity.  Let’s consider two examples.

          ● In what is known as the Liturgy of Saint James, after the priest recites embellished citations of the first two clauses of Matthew 6:13, he is to say out loud, “For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever,” and then the congregation is to reply with “Amen.” 

          ● In what is known as the Anaphora of Saint Basil, the priest says, “For Yours is the dominion, the kingdom, the power, and the glory of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever to the age of ages.”  And further along in the service, the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer occurs just before the breaking of the bread in the communion-service:  the congregation is to recite the Lord’s Prayer up to the end of the phrase, “Deliver us from evil,” and then the priest is to  recite the doxology, with an embellishment (or “embolism”), saying, “For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages.”
          (Additional liturgical examples of prayer-conclusions which ascribe glory to God in one way or another – such as “In the name of Your only-begotten Jesus Christ, through whom to You is the glory and the strength in the Holy Spirit to all the ages of the ages, Amen” and “Through Your only-begotten to Thee is the glory and the strength in Holy Spirit, now and to all the ages of the ages, Amen” – can be found in the Sacramentary of Sarapion of Thmuis, which is generally considered to have been produced in the mid-300s.)

         

Matthew 6:13b in 892.

In the late 1800s, Dean Burgon, conscious of this liturgical custom, proposed that it is so ancient that it accounts for the rival reading in Matthew 6:13.  Several pages of Causes of Corruption are devoted to the exploration of this variant-unit.  Burgon pointed out that if the doxology was added to the text of Matthew after previously existing as a liturgical formula, then instead of seeing, “For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, Amen,” we would see, “For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages” – which, although it is what we see in the Anaphora of Basil and the Liturgy of Saint James,  is not what we see, except in two manuscripts (157 and 1253).  The idea that Matthew 6:13b was based on a liturgical formula, Burgon argued, is just the opposite of what ought to be concluded:  instead, a variety of liturgical formulas are based on Matthew 6:13b. 

          Burgon proceeded to propose that the loss of Matthew 6:13b was related to the custom of having the congregation recite the Lord’s Prayer up to the end of “deliver us from evil,” and then having the priest alone recite the doxology.  An early copy with a mark beside it – intended to mean that the doxology was not to be read aloud by the congregation – could easily be misconstrued by a professional copyist to mean that the doxology was not to be written by the scribe.  And thus the whole phrase failed to be perpetuated in a transmission-line that branched out into the base-texts of the Old Latin version(s), and the Alexandrian text-form represented by À B Mae, and the text used by Origen. 

 

Matthew 6:12-13 in Codex K.

         Such an occurrence would have to happen extremely early – sometime in the 100s.  But this is completely feasible.  As evidence that liturgical formulas were in use in liturgies in the 100s, we may turn to Irenaeus’ work Against Heresies, Book One, chapter 3:  remarking on false teachers’ heresies about Aeons, he mentions that “We ourselves, when at the Eucharist, pronounce the words “to aeons of aeons”” – that is, the words “forever and ever.”  We see the same kind of expression in Á3, Á6, Á13, and the Gnostic “Prayer of the Apostle Paul.”

          The words “and ever” in the liturgy are a natural expansion – but an expansion of what?  When we see, in the Didache, a description of the Lord’s Prayer being used at a communion-service in the 100s, and when we see, from Irenaeus, a reference to the phrase “forever and ever” being used at the communion-service in the 100s, it seems reasonable to conclude that Irenaeus is referring to an expansion of the same Matthean doxology described in the Didache.

          Thus the table was set, so to speak, in the 100s for a scribal mechanism that could cause the accidental loss of Matthew 6:13b in exemplars that were in the ancestry of both the Old Latin version, and a significant segment of the Alexandrian text-stream, and a form of Matthew used by Origen.  This accounts for the absence of the doxology in the quotations by Latin writers reading Old Latin copies (such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine), and for the absence of the doxology in copies used by Origen. 

CONCLUSION

          Since the days of Erasmus, it has been alleged that the doxology in Matthew 6:13 is an accretion that slipped into the text from the liturgy.  In the 1700s, Bengel expressed this idea in his Gnomon (Vol. 1, pages 192-195), pointing out that the medieval writer Euthymius, in the course of criticizing the Bogomils for not using the doxology, claimed that it “the choral conclusion added by those who were the divine illuminators and guides of the church.”  (Without closer study, I cannote tell if Euthymius really criticized the Bogomils for avoiding a reading which he admitted was an accretion, or if Euthymius meant nothing more than that Matthew 6:13b was used as the framework for part of the liturgy by those to whom the liturgies are attributed.)  Bengel’s research on the passage can be consulted in the text-critical appendix of his 1734 Η Καινη Διαθηκη and in his Apparatus Criticus.

          More recently, Bruce Metzger claimed that the evidence “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.” (Compare Hort’s Notes on Select Readings on this variant-unit.)

          This is a convenient explanation for defenders of the Alexandrian text, but the same thought, in the minds of early scribes, would be an effective impetus for the removal of the doxology from the text of Matthew.  Picture a Christian in the second century attending church-services in which the congregation recites the Lord’s Prayer up to the end of “Deliver us from evil,” and the priest (or elder) proceeds to recite the doxology.  In the mind of some participants, the words recited by the congregation – and only those words – were perceived as the prayer; the doxology being regarded as a liturgical flourish.  If such a participant were to proceed to become a scribe, it would be very easy for him to conclude, when encountering the doxology in Matthew 6:13 in an exemplar, that the scribe of his exemplar had mistakenly included a liturgical flourish in the text – and all the more easily considering that there is no such doxology in Luke 11. 

          Of course no one on earth can demonstrate that this happened in the second century; yet the implication of this theory – that Mt. 6:13b is original – is supported not only by a vast proportion of manuscripts (over 98%), but by the significantly earliest witness (the Didache), and by widespread witnesses (Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, Codex W, L, Δ, 892, 1192, 2812, the Peshitta, the Gothic version, the Armenian version, the Opus Imperfectum, etc.).  The non-inclusion of “For Yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever, Amen” should be considered an early Western reading that was adopted in Egypt but which failed to gain wide acceptance in other Greek transmission-lines (not unlike the non-inclusion of τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν in Matthew 6:15).



Readers are encouraged to explore the embedded links for additional resources.

 

Matthew 6:13 - How Does the Lord's Prayer End? (Part 1)

Matthew 6:13b in minuscule 13.

          At the close of Matthew 6:13, most modern versions of the New Testament place the phrase, “For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever; Amen” in a footnote, whereas the KJV, NKJV, WEB, and MEV have it in the text.  (The hyper-paraphrase The Message also has it in the text, albeit in a rather distorted form.)  Let’s take a closer look at the evidence pertaining to this textual contest.

          In about 98.5% of the Greek manuscripts that contain Matthew 6:13 (something around 1,500 MSS), the words ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ (“but deliver us from evil”) are followed by ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν (“For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, Amen”). 

            Some anomalous readings in this phrase appear in Greek manuscripts and versions, as the late Bruce Metzger pointed out in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:   it “occurs in several forms,” which he listed, citing the Sahidic and Fayummic versions – which don’t mention “the kingdom” – and the habitually anomalous Old Latin Codex Bobbiensis – which only has the Latin equivalent of “For yours is the power forever and ever” – and minor liturgical expansions found in “some Greek manuscripts” and “Several late manuscripts.”  However, Metzger frugally declined to share with readers the consistency with which the vast majority of Greek manuscripts perpetuate the words (with some allowance for spelling).    

Matthew 6:13 in Codex W.

          Fortunately this gap in Metzger’s comments has been filled in by data presented by Jonathan Borland, who has pointed out that 1,416 manuscripts preserve the phrase exactly, and that all of the MSS from the 900s and earlier that have the phrase “contain the doxology completely intact, letter for letter.”  Among these 105 MSS are Codices E G K L M S U V W Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ω 047 0211 0233 0257 0287 and minuscules such as 33 123 151 274 405 461 565 773 892 1073 1077 1079 1080 1110 1172 1346 1424 1701 1816 2142 2414 and 2812.

          There is a smattering of variations among MSS that support the inclusion of the doxology, but their attestation is practically trivial:

          ● The final “Amen” is missing in 16 MSS, at least in the text written by the main scribe.
          ● In 20 MSS, an extra “and ever” appears between “forever” and “Amen.” 

          ● Five manuscripts read the equivalent of “For yours is the kingdom and the power forever, Amen.” 
          ● Six manuscripts read the equivalent of “For yours is the kingdom and the glory forever, Amen.” 

           Why is a passage with so much manuscript-support not included in the base-text of the NIV, ESV, CSB, etc.?  Because it is absent from several important early witnesses.  These include Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (the flagship manuscripts of the Alexandrian Text – as well as Codex Bezae (the flagship MS of the Western Text), Codex Z (035, from the 500s), 0170 (400s or 500s), and the leading members of family-1, and a smattering of other minuscules (130, 372, 890, 1090^c, 2701^s, 2737, 2780*, and 2786. 
          In addition, most Old Latin copies do not include the doxology; nor do the Middle Egyptian version and the earliest strata of the Bohairic version. 

          Turning to the versional support for inclusion of the doxology, we find that the Peshitta (late 300s/early 400s), the Gothic version (mid-300s), the Palestinian Aramaic, the Harklean Syriac (616), and the Armenian (c. 430), Georgian, and Ethiopic versions favor inclusion.  The Curetonian Syriac supports “for yours is the kingdom and the glory forever, Amen.”  Although the Vulgate and most Old Latin witnesses support non-inclusion, VL 7 (g¹) supports the whole passage except “Amen,” and Codex Bobbiensis (VL 1, k) supports “For yours is the power forever and ever, Amen.”  Miller (1893) also cited Codex Brixianus (VL 10, f) and VL 13 (q) as support for inclusion.  The Sahidic and Fayummic versions are both cited in the UBS apparatus (ed. 2) as support for “For yours is the power and the glory forever, Amen.”

          We now come to the patristic evidence.  Some very significant patristic writings support the non-inclusion of the doxology: 

          ● Origen (first half of the 200s, in Caesarea)

          ● Acts of Thomas (200s)

          ● Hilary of Poitiers (mid-300s),

          ● Caesarius of Nazianzus (mid-300s),

          ● Gregory of Nyssa (mid-late 300s),

          ● Cyril of Alexandria (early 400s),

          ● Maximus the Confessor (early 600s), and, in Latin, 

          ● Tertullian (c. 200, in North Africa),

          ● Cyprian (mid-200s, in North Africa), and

          ● Ambrose (late 300s),  

          ● Chromatius of Aquileia (late 300s),

          ● Augustine (early 400s), and     

          ● Peter Chrysologus (mid-400s).

          Meanwhile, John Chrysostom quoted and commented upon the entire phrase (c. 400) and it also appears in Apostolic Constitutions (composed c. 380).  In the very early composition known as The Didache (early 100s), in chapter 8, the unknown author states the following:

          Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites.  For they fast on the second and fifth day of the week.  Instead, fast on the fourth day, and the Preparation-Day (Friday).  Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this:

          “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed is Your name.  Your kingdom come.  Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.  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.  For Yours is the power and the glory forever.”

          In chapter 9, the Didache contains a model-prayer for the communion service which includes the following statement:  “As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and after it had been brought together became one, so may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth unto thy kingdom, for thine is the glory, and the power, through Jesus Christ, forever.”

          In chapter 10, the Didache presents a model prayer to be given following the communion-service; it begins with the phrase, “We thank You, holy Father, for Your holy name which You caused to dwell in our hearts.”  Here is its final paragraph, slightly adjusted from the translations by Kirsopp Lake and J. B. Lightfoot, slightly modernized:

          “Remember, Lord, your Church, to deliver it from all evil and to perfect it in your love, and gather it together from the four winds – the sanctified people – into your kingdom which you have prepared for it. For yours is the power and the glory for ever.  May grace come and may this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If any man is holy, let him come; if any man is not, let him repent.   Maranatha,  Amen.”

          All three of these passages in the Didache look like adaptations of the doxology in Matthew 6:13.    Particularly in chapter 10, there are thematic connections to the Lord’s Prayer as presented in Matthew 6:9-13:  we see in close proximity, and in the same order, a reference to the Father, to His name, and to deliverance from evil – and then to the Father’s kingdom, and then the phrase “for Yours is the power and the glory forever.” 

          When considering the testimony of the Didache, however, two things need to be kept in mind:  first, that the most complete manuscript of the Didache was produced in 1056, and its liturgical contents might have been influenced by factors that did not exist when it was initially composed.  In other words, it is possible that the doxology-phrase might have been added to the Didache’s contents some time after the second century.   Second, and dovetailing with that, the incorporation of parts of the Didache into other compositions such as Apostolic Constitutions Book VII (generally assigned to 380) and a sermon of St. Boniface suggests that its text was subject to customization, which is all the more reason why some researchers have suggested that it is somewhat precarious to treat the text of the Didache’s eleventh-century representative as if it must echo the second-century text.   

          Fortunately we have a bit more data which may help us balance these factors.  The main witness to the text of the Didache is Codex Hierosolymitanus 54 was discovered in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios, the metropolitan of Nicomedia, at Constantinople.  It contains not only the text of the Didache but some other early Christian compositions as well, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, First Clement, Second Clement, the long form of the Epistles of Ignatius, and the text known as the Epistle of Mary of Kassobelae to Ignatius.

          In 1922, Arthur Hunt published two small fragments which contained text from the first three chapters (1:3c-4a and 2:7b-3:2a) of the Didache – although the text of this fifth- or sixth-century witness, P. Oxy. 15.1782, varied from the contents of Codex Hierosolymitanus.  The relevance of the textual variations in P.Oxy. 15.1782, however, are a matter of debate, inasmuch as this witness takes the form of a miniature codex – the fragments measure only 5 x 5.8 cm and 5.7 x 4.8 cm – and such small books may have been intended to include merely an abridged sample of the Didache’s contents.  

              In 1924, the document known as Br. Mus. Or. 9271 was published by George Horner:  it is a Coptic text “of a Middle Egyptian kind,” written on papyrus, that contains Didache 10:3b-12:2a.  Its production-date was estimated to be perhaps as early as 400.  Horner, in Journal of Theological Studies, provided an English translation of the text from this one-sheet fragment; here is the final paragraph of its text of the communion-prayer in chapter 10, as translated by Horner: 

          “Remember, O Lord, thy Church that thou shouldst deliver her from all the evil and perfect her by Thy love, and gather her from the four winds into thy kingdom which thou preparedst for her.  Because thine is the power and the glory eternal, hamen.  Let come the Lord, and let this world pass away, hamen.  Osanna to the house of David.  He who is holy, let him come, he who is not holy, let him repent.  The Lord came, Amen.”

          In case the close agreement between Codex Hierosolymitanus 54 and Br. Mus. Or. 9271 is not clear, here is a line-by-line comparison; Horner’s translation from the Coptic text is in bold italicized black print; a translation of Codex H54 is in bold blue print:

          “Remember, O Lord, thy Church

          “Remember, Lord, your Church,

          that thou shouldst deliver her from all the evil

          to deliver it from all evil

          and perfect her by Thy love,

          and to perfect it in your love,

          and gather her from the four winds into thy kingdom

          and gather it together from the four winds

            – the sanctified people – into your kingdom

          which thou preparedst for her. 

          which you have prepared for it.

          Because thine is the power and the glory eternal, hamen. 

          For yours is the power and the glory forever. 

          Let come the Lord, and let this world pass away, hamen.

          May grace come and may this world pass away.

          Osanna to the house of David.

          Hosanna to the God of David.

         

          He who is holy, let him come,

          If any man is holy, let him come;

          he who is not holy, let him repent.

          if any man is not, let him repent.  

          The Lord came, Amen.”

          Maranatha,  Amen.”

          Clearly both manuscripts are presenting the same prayer, and clearly the phrase “For yours is the power and the glory forever” is in them both.

          I note that while it is possible that a moment of inattentiveness could cause a scribe’s line of sight to skip from the ἡ before βασιλεία (“kingdom”) to the ἡ before δύναμις (“power”) and thus fail to preserve the reference to the kingdom, another and probably better explanation of the absence of the reference to the kingdom in this prayer (and in chapter 9) is that because this doxology-phrase is immediately preceded by a reference to God’s kingdom, the term was not used so as to avoid superfluity.

          Inasmuch as the Didache repeatedly borrows language from the Gospel of Matthew and uses Matthew’s form of the Lord’s model prayer (this is so indisputable that the point need not be argued), the concerns of those who are hesitant to affirm that Codex Hierosolymitanus 54 shows that the author of the Didache was familiar with a text of Matthew 6:13 that included the doxology may be alleviated by the combined testimony of Codex Hierosolymitanus 54 and Br. Mus. Or. 9271.

          Inasmuch as the Didache was probably composed when people who knew the apostle Matthew were still alive, this is an extremely weighty witness for the inclusion of the doxology in the original text of Matthew 6:13.

To be continued in Part 2.

Readers are encouraged to explore the embedded links to additional resources.

Biblica Versus the Facts About "Added Verses"

            Recently the website of Biblica – formerly known as the International Bible Society – featured a brief video, “Do Modern Bibles Such as the NIV Leave Out Verses?”.  Biblica’s answer to that question was, basically, that the NIV is not at fault; the KJV has verses that are not in the “oldest and most reliable manuscripts,” and so – Biblica’s narrator explains – it only looks like the NIV leaves out verses; what has really happened is that the KJV was based on inferior manuscripts, which contained verses and phrases that are not original.
            The video gives just one example of a phrase that is not in the NIV: the doxology to the Lord’s model prayer in Matthew 6:13: “For yours in the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen.” The non-inclusion of these words, Biblica’s narration says, “is a good thing.”
            Before looking into that in more detail, I think it is fitting to look at some other statements in the video, asking, “Do the folks at Biblica know what they are talking about?”

Biblica: “It’s important to realize that we currently don’t have any complete books of the Bible on a single scroll or codex from before A.D. 350.”

            False. Papyrus 72 contains, along with most of the text of First and Second Peter (and other compositions), the text of all 25 verses of the book of Jude. Codex Vaticanus is generally assigned to the early 300s, not the mid-300s (because it lacks the Eusebian Canons, a cross-reference system for the Gospels which was developed by Eusebius of Caesarea at about that time).

Biblica: “At the time” – when English translations of the Bible were first produced – “the earliest accessible manuscripts dated back to approximately the 9th century A.D. for the Old Testament, and the 12th century A.D. for the New Testament.”

            This is likely to make it seem as if the Reformation-era scholars only had a smattering of late Greek manuscripts at their disposal.  However, manuscripts were not the only form of evidence known to the scholars of that time.  They also consulted Scripture-citations embedded in patristic writings, and versional evidence such as the Peshitta.  Those citations and those versions echo manuscripts much earlier than the ninth century.   

Biblica:  “In this process” – the process in which researchers in the 1800s compared the text of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus to the text of later manuscripts – “they discovered that several words and sentences included in the Bible of their day did not exist in the much earlier copies of Scripture.”

            Since no evidence to the contrary is presented in the video, many viewers are likely to conclude that this means that such words and sentences did not exist at all in copies of New Testament books before the mid-300s.  But let’s take a closer look at some evidence pertaining to some verses that are not in the NIV – evidence that apparently eluded the helpful folks at Biblica.  

● Matthew 17:21.  Origen, writing in the first half of the 200s, cited Matthew 17:21.  In the NIV, this verse is absent, because it is not in the fourth-century manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but it must have been in Origen’s manuscripts in the first half of the 200s.

● Luke 23:17.  This verse is not in the NIV, but it is in Codex Sinaiticus. (This is one of thousands of disagreements between these two manuscripts.)  It was also utilized by Eusebius of Caesarea (who died in 340). 

● Acts 8:37.  This verse is not in the NIV, but the verse was utilized in the 100s by Irenaeus, and in the 200s by Cyprian.   

            Anyone capable of reading the textual apparatus of the UBS Greek New Testament can verify this information from Biblica’s own materials.  I know not and judge not whether Biblica’s claim that these verses did not exist in manuscripts before the 300s is a case of deliberate deception, or a symptom of innocent incompetence.  But I can say – for it is a matter of observation – that the impression given by Biblica’s cartoon fiction has no resemblance to the evidence found in the real world.

Biblica:  “The earliest New Testament manuscripts are very reliable in helping us know what was originally written.” 

            This is true, but misleadingly vague (like all of the NIV’s footnotes about manuscripts), because the NIV’s base-text frequently disagrees with the earliest manuscripts when the earliest manuscripts disagree with Vaticanus and/or Sinaiticus, and in some other cases as well.  In Mark 1:41, for example, the NIV disagrees with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and with all of the medieval manuscripts too.  In John 7:8, the NIV disagrees with Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75.  In Mark 9:29, the NIV disagrees with Papyrus 45.  In Matthew 27:49, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus both have a reading which the NIV does not reflect (which is actually a good thing for the NIV, because the Alexandrian reading there is an accretion).  The NIV disagrees with Papyrus 46 in First Corinthians 10:26 (and in hundreds of other passages).  In Mark 1:34 the NIV disagrees with Vaticanus.  And in John 1:18, the NIV’s text does not correspond to the text of any Greek manuscript, young or old.        

     

Biblica:  “These verses” – i.e., verses in the KJV but not in the NIV – “were not removed.  They simply didn’t exist in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts we now have access to.” 

            On what grounds are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus considered the “most reliable” manuscripts?  Although Biblica’s narration-writers seem reluctant to admit it, their preference for the Alexandrian Text is based on the work undertaken by the scholars Westcott and Hort (especially Hort) in the 1800s.  (Biblica’s video acknowledges that the Revised Version – which Westcott and Hort helped to produce – and the American Standard Version were “completed using the latest manuscript discoveries.”  Those manuscript-discoveries did not include any of the papyri; yet the NIV’s base-text differs very little (by about 800 readings) from the compilation made in 1881 by Westcott and Hort.)    

Biblica:  “In the second half of the 20th century, new Bible translations, such as the New International Version, or NIV, began to emerge, based on the vast treasure of early manuscripts.”

            Two things in that sentence need clarification.  First, the NIV that was produced in the late 20th century is no longer in print.  The 1984 NIV is quite different from the 2011 NIV, and some of those differences are due to differences in their base-texts.  (Exhibit A:  Mark 1:41.)   Second, the “vast treasure” that favors the NIV’s base-text is frequently not vast.  Compared to the manuscript-support for the readings found in the Byzantine Text (which is usually represented, with some significant exceptions, in the KJV, NKJV, and MEB), the NIV’s base-text is usually represented by a small minority of manuscripts in Matthew-Jude, at points where it disagrees with the KJV’s base-text.

            To see the relative scale of the “vast treasure” of manuscripts for the NIV’s base-text, compared to the manuscripts that tend to support something else, let’s examine the one specific passage that was mentioned in Biblica’s cartoon:  Matthew 6:13.

            What Greek manuscripts of Matthew support the NIV?   Wieland Willker listed them:  Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, D, Z, 0170, family-1 (a small but important cluster of related manuscripts), 372, 2737, 2786, 130, 890, 1090^c, 2701^s, and the first hand of 2780.  (There may be more, but that is the most thorough list I have seen.)  

Matthew 6:13 in Codex W (replica).

What Greek manuscripts support the inclusion of “For yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever”?  Here is the list:

07 011 017 019 021 028 030 031 032 037 038 041 042 043 045 047 055 0211 0233^c 0257 0287 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22^c 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 33 34 35 36 37 39 40 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 52 54 55 56 58 59 60 63 64 65 66 67 68 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 80 83 84 86 89 90 98 99 100 105 106 107 108 109 111 112 114 116 117 119 120 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 132 133 134 135^s 136 137 138 140 141 142 143 144 146 147 148 149 150 151 153 154^c 155 156  158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 167 169 170 171 173 174 175 178 179 180 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 198 199 200 201 202 204 207 208 210 211 212 213 214 215 217 218 219 220 224 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 240 243 244 245 246 247 248 251 259 260 261 262 263 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 282 283 284 285 286 287 288^c 289 290 291 293 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 303 304 305 329 330 331 333 334 335 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 355 358 359 360 361 363 364 365 366 367 370 371 373 374 376 377 379 380 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 399 402 405 406 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 417 419 420 423 428 431 435 438 439 440 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 461 470 471 473 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 500 501 504 505 506 507 509 510 511 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 527 528 529 530 532 534 535 537 543 544 546 547 548 549 550 551 553 554 555^c 556 557 558 560 561 563 564 565 566 568 569 571 574 575 577 578 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 591 592 594 595 597 600 645 649 651 652 655 657 660 662 663 664 666 668 672 676 677 680 683 684 685 689 690 691 692 693 694 696 697 699 700 703 706 707 711 713 714 715 716 717 718 720 722 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 732 734 735 738 741 744 745^c 746 747 750 751 752^c 753 754 755 757 758 759 761 762 763 765 766 768^s 769 772^s 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794^s 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 803 804 805 806 808 809 811 817 818 819 820 822 824 825 826 828 830 833 834 835 836 839 843 844 845 852 854 855 856 858 860 861 863 864 867 871 875 877 878 880 881 888 889 892 893 895 896 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 932 933 934 935 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 948 949 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 968 970 971 972 973 974 975 978 979 980 982 983 986 987 988 989 991 992 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1017 1018 1019 1020 1023 1024 1025 1026 1028 1029 1030 1032 1033 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042^s 1043 1044 1046 1047^s 1048 1052 1054^s 1056^s 1057 1058 1059 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1068 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1088 1089 1090* 1091 1092 1093 1095 1096 1097 1110 1111 1113 1114 1117 1118 1120 1121 1122 1123 1125 1126 1127 1130 1131 1132 1133 1135 1136 1138 1139 1144 1145 1146 1148 1149 1152 1155 1157 1158 1159 1160 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1185 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1202 1203 1204 1205 1207 1208 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1229 1230 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1247 1248^c 1250 1251 1252 1260 1261 1262 1263 1266 1268 1269 1272 1273 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1285 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1296 1297 1298 1299 1301 1302 1303 1305 1309 1310S 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1333 1334 1335 1336 1338 1339 1340 1341 1343 1345 1346 1347 1350 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1362 1364 1365 1367 1377^c 1383 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1413 1414^s 1415 1418 1420 1421 1422 1424 1432 1434 1435 1436 1438 1439 1441 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464S 1465 1466 1467 1468 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491^c 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1505 1506 1508 1510 1511 1519 1521 1528 1530 1531 1533 1535 1536 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1562 1563 1564 1570 1572 1573 1575 1576 1579^c 1580 1581 1582^c 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1594 1595 1597 1600 1601 1603 1604 1605 1606 1609 1613 1615 1617 1620 1622 1623 1625 1626 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1637 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1645 1646 1647 1649 1651 1652 1653 1659 1660 1661 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1670 1672 1675 1676 1677 1678 1680 1682 1685 1686 1687 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1712 1713 1797 1800 1802 1804 1808 1813 1814 1816 1823 1901^c 1966 2095 2097 2099 2101 2107 2108 2109 2117 2118 2120 2121 2122 2123 2126 2127 2131 2132 2133 2135 2139 2141 2142 2146 2147 2159 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176* 2177 2178 2181 2191 2193 2195 2199 2201 2204 2206 2207 2213 2215 2217 2220 2221 2224 2229 2236 2255 2260 2261 2263 2265 2266 2267 2273 2277 2278 2280 2281 2283 2284 2287 2290^s 2291 2292 2295 2296 2297 2301 2307 2314 2315 2317 2321 2322 2323 2324 2328 2352 2354 2355 2356 2362 2367 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2381 2382 2383 2386 2387 2388 2390 2394 2396 2397 2398 2400 2404 2405 2406 2407 2411 2414 2415 2420 2422 2426 2430 2439 2442 2444 2446 2451 2452^c 2454 2458 2460 2465 2470 2471 2472 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2482 2483 2487 2488 2489 2490 2492 2494 2496 2497 2499 2502 2503 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2515 2516 2518 2520 2521 2524 2525 2528^s 2530 2533 2539 2545 2546 2549 2550 2554 2555 2559^s 2561 2562 2571 2577 2578 2579 2581 2583 2585 2586 2590 2591 2592 2598 2603^s 2604 2605 2606 2608 2610 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2620 2622 2623 2624 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2645 2646 2650 2651^s 2653 2656 2658 2660 2665 2670 2673 2676 2680 2684 2685 2687 2691 2692 2694 2695 2702 2703 2705 2706 2707 2709 2710 2713 2714 2718 2721 2722 2724 2726 2727 2728^s 2734 2735 2745 2749 2754 2756 2757 2760 2765 2766 2767 2770 2774 2775 2779 2780^c 2781 2783 2787 2788 2806 2808 2809 2810 2812 2819 2831 2835 2836.

            That’s over 1,400 manuscripts.  In addition – although it is not my intention to settle the textual contest in Matthew 6:13 today in a few words – readers should be aware that in the Didache, a composition which is usually assigned to the early 100s – much earlier than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus – the Lord’s Prayer is presented with the closing phrase, “For yours is the power and the glory forever.”  This is not quite the text that is supported by 1,400 Greek manuscripts, including Codex W – and by the composition called Apostolic Constitutions, assigned to 380 – but it is quite similar, and all that is needed to bring them into close agreement is to reckon that an early copyist’s line of sight accidentally skipped from the ἡ before βασιλεία (“kingdom”) to the ἡ before δύναμις (“power”).  

Biblica's spokesperson - Miss Information.

           Instead of maintaining that a few relatively isolated ancient Greek manuscripts are correct in so many places where the majority of extant Greek manuscripts (and their non-extant, older ancestors) are incorrect, there is an alternative explanation for many of the instances where the NIV’s base-text is shorter than what one finds in over 90% of the Greek manuscripts.  This has to do with assumptions that were built into how the manuscripts’ contents were analyzed in the 1800s and 1900s.  For over two centuries, New Testament textual criticism was practiced on the basis of a series of simple principles, one of the most important of which was “The shorter reading is to be preferred.”  In theory, this principle was supposed to be qualified in various ways, but in real life, when the Alexandrian Text – the text supported by Codex Vaticanus – had a shorter reading than what was found in most manuscripts, the imagination of influential textual critics of the 1800s and 1900s tended to focus on ways to explain the longer reading as an accretion, instead of on how to explain the shorter reading as the result of scribal negligence.  (That is why the ESV does not have Matthew 12:47.)  More recently, a series of research projects have confirmed that contrary to the assumptions of scholars such as Westcott and Hort, early copyists tended to omit more frequently than they added.  One would think that this discovery would result in the reversal of many decisions made by Westcott and Hort in favor of shorter readings, but this has so far not been the case, as one can see by looking at the NIV’s New Testament base-text.

            In conclusion:  the cartoon’s contention that verses and phrases not found in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus did not yet exist in 350, and that this makes the NIV superior to the KJV – and its secondary point, that a “vast treasure” of manuscripts supports the NIV and opposes the Byzantine readings – can be refuted many times in many ways.  Things are not nearly as simple as Biblica’s cartoon makes it seem.