32 End of the Lord’s Prayer

End of the “Lord’s Prayer”, Mat.6:13

In most of the modern versions of the Bible, the doxology at the end of the “Lord’s Prayer” as recorded by Matthew, is omitted or printed in the margin. This doxology also does not appear in gospel according to Luke.
Let us look at the facts recorded in the manuscripts available:

Matthew 6:13; end of the “Lord’s Prayer”:

Possibilities Omitted: Included:
Witness Greek: Translations Church Fathers Greek Translations Church Fathers
101-200 Diatessaron Didache
201-300 Origen , Cyprian , Tertullian
301-400 א, B Vulgate , Boharic Hilary Caesarius-N , Gregory-Nyssa , Cyrel-Jerusalem Gothic , Syriac Apostolic Constitutions
401-500 D 7 Old Latin Chromatius Augustine W 2 Syriac , Armenian , Georgian Chrysostom
501-600 0170 Peter-Laodicea Old Latin Ethiopic Version
601-700 Maximus-Confessor Old Latin , Syriac
701-800 L
801-900 Vulgate K, Λ, Θ, Π, 33 Old Latin
Minuscules f1 f13, 28, Many late Minuscules

The question before us is whether this doxology had been given by Jesus Himself as the end of the prayer, or had been added to the prayer at a later stage?

1. In the manuscripts no less than 7 variations are presented. Some add words like: “…the glory of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” or “…for ever and ever!” etc.
2. The only Greek manuscript before the year 700 having the doxology is Codex Washingtonianus. This manuscript is most probably a compilation of fragments from different origin. The codex has many unique variations throughout.
3. The doxology does appear in the Diatessaron of Titan, a document with some arbitrary additions and omissions.
4. Manuscripts lacking the doxology are widespread, while those containing it are almost all from the Byxantine area.
5. A possible explanation for the origin of this doxology could be a note in the margin (Gloss) as a meaningful ending of a prayer adapted from 1Chron.29:11-13.

1. Up to 700 A.D. which version is supported by most Manuscripts?_______ Translations?_______ Church Fathers?______
2. Does the inclusion of the doxology cause a break in the general course of the pericope?________________________
3. How do you consider the possible explanation given in remark 5 above? ____________________________________
4. Would it be appropriate to compile a personal doxology for one’s own prayers taking i.a. Rom.11:36 or 16:27 as guideline?_________________
5. Does the inclusion or omission of the doxology bring any aspect of faith in the balance?_____________________________
6. Own choice: _________________________

The doxology is beautiful and very appropriate. Yet if it had been added at a later stage by some pious priest or scribe, that is exactly what it is – an addition, putting his own words in the mouth of the Lord! Removing it from the gospel of Matthew would then be a restoration back to the original words of our Lord. Do we really need more than what the Lord deemed necessary?

God bless.



About bibledifferencesfacts

I am a retired preacher of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa. Since my studies at the University of Pretoria I had a keen interest in the reasons for the differences between the translations of the Bible, especially the New Testament. Since 1973 I am married to my dear wife and greatest friend, Leah Page. We are blessed with two daughters and two sons, two grand sons and one grand daughter. God is alive and omnipotent! Glory to His Name! Herman
This entry was posted in Eusebian Canons, gloss, prayer. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s