Read on Twitter
Thread: The 'traditional' ending of the Lord's Prayer.
Many, like me, grew up hearing the #KJV version of the Lord's prayer, ending 'For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.' (Matthew 6:13)
We often felt cheated when modern versions 'omitted' it.
Many, like me, grew up hearing the #KJV version of the Lord's prayer, ending 'For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.' (Matthew 6:13)
We often felt cheated when modern versions 'omitted' it.
Were sceptical scholars taking scissors to Scripture?
How dare 19th century scholars take out what had been there so long?
Weren't people who preferred the shorter text just preferring particular corrupt manuscripts from Egypt?
Etc.
How dare 19th century scholars take out what had been there so long?
Weren't people who preferred the shorter text just preferring particular corrupt manuscripts from Egypt?
Etc.
I won't rehearse the manuscript evidence for or against the inclusion of these words. Others have done that.
All I will do here is dispute the narrative that this was the 'traditional' ending.
By just looking at *English* versions.
Tyndale's first edition (1526) lacks it.
All I will do here is dispute the narrative that this was the 'traditional' ending.
By just looking at *English* versions.
Tyndale's first edition (1526) lacks it.
Earlier #Wycliffite #MiddleEnglish versions lack it.
( @corpuscambridge @ParkerLibCCCC mss 147 & 440, respectively)
( @corpuscambridge @ParkerLibCCCC mss 147 & 440, respectively)
And this 'traditional' ending is missing from the yet earlier #OldEnglish Gospels.
( @CorpusCambridge @ParkerLibCCCC ms 140, the #BathGospels - last word sothlice 'in sooth' = 'amen', 3 words from end of penultimate line)
( @CorpusCambridge @ParkerLibCCCC ms 140, the #BathGospels - last word sothlice 'in sooth' = 'amen', 3 words from end of penultimate line)
The 'traditional' ending was introduced in Tyndale's second edition (1534).
If you really value age, you'll remember that, at least in English, it's a younger tradition.
English versions which lack these words are not departing from the faith, but rather restoring what was.
If you really value age, you'll remember that, at least in English, it's a younger tradition.
English versions which lack these words are not departing from the faith, but rather restoring what was.
A common controlling narrative of KJV/Textus Receptus traditionalists is of 17th century fidelity & 19th century apostasy.
It has plausibility because there's more than a grain of truth in it.
However, one can also tell a different story.
It has plausibility because there's more than a grain of truth in it.
However, one can also tell a different story.
I tried to do this in my recent book
https://www.crossway.org/books/can-we-trust-the-gospels-tpb-2/
In ch. 6 I trace the common ground between Erasmus in the 16th century & decisions by recent NT editors.
In many ways recent editions are continuing rather than departing from textual tradition.
END
https://www.crossway.org/books/can-we-trust-the-gospels-tpb-2/
In ch. 6 I trace the common ground between Erasmus in the 16th century & decisions by recent NT editors.
In many ways recent editions are continuing rather than departing from textual tradition.
END
