Complete textual-variant dossier
Adverse entailment established
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
The received text includes the petition for God’s will to be done on earth as in heaven. The critical text omits it from Luke while retaining the petition in Matthew.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.”
Authorized Version
“Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.” — Luke 11:2
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
The prayer moves from “Thy kingdom come” directly to daily bread.
Translation or explanation
The prayer moves from “Thy kingdom come” directly to daily bread.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of 3 variation units within this record's range. The notes ground the relevant decisions in the weight and distribution of external attestation, a proposed mechanism of accidental omission, the likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion, authorial usage, grammar, or immediate context; the printed confidence ratings represented here are {A}, {B}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., notes on Luke 11:2, 11:2, 11:2
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
UBS6 retains the NA28 / UBS5 Greek main-text wording in Luke, so no main-text change is shown for this passage. The separate project ledger covers Acts, Mark, and Revelation.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
No meaningful doctrinal effect
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
Its kingdom petition implicitly includes God’s will, and no doctrine depends upon Luke being the sole witness to the line.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Luke 11:2, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. Modern critical editions omit the line, giving Luke a visibly shorter prayer than Matthew. The critical prayer remains sound but abbreviated.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 11:2 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
No meaningful doctrinal effect: Its kingdom petition implicitly includes God’s will, and no doctrine depends upon Luke being the sole witness to the line.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
Its kingdom petition implicitly includes God’s will, and no doctrine depends upon Luke being the sole witness to the line.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Because the Lord’s Prayer was memorized and repeated, a copyist could readily bring Luke into conformity with the familiar Matthean form. The longer Luke includes several such points of agreement, and their cumulative pattern strengthens the harmonization argument. The fact that Matthew contains it is a credible explanation of addition but not proof.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The petition’s presence across the ecclesiastical tradition cannot be dismissed merely by naming worship as a corrupting force. Disciples who pray Luke 11:2 are asking for that same reordered desire in households, churches, labor, and public life. It forms a coherent sequence, is fully dominical, and belongs to the church’s transmitted Luke.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 11:2. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending. Modern critical editions omit the line, giving Luke a visibly shorter prayer than Matthew. The critical prayer remains sound but abbreviated.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 1 passage-specific note attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster StandardsWestminster proof-text and translation comparison
Seth Stark — supplied PDF pp. 44
At Luke 11:2, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “So He said to them, “When you pray, say: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.”” with the ESV/critical-text wording “And he said to them, "When you pray, say: "Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come.”” and associates the passage with WLC 186, WSC 99.
Editorial use: This establishes a confessional proof-text and reception connection. It does not by itself establish the original reading, and its English-version comparison must be checked against the Greek variation unit.
Conclusion
The critical prayer remains sound but abbreviated. Its kingdom petition implicitly includes God’s will, and no doctrine depends upon Luke being the sole witness to the line. Textual loss would nevertheless matter because inspired repetition is not dispensable.
The petition’s close binds worship to life. Hallowing God’s name without doing his will becomes religious speech. Asking for the kingdom while protecting disobedience becomes contradiction. The received Luke lets the prayer expose both evasions before turning to bread, forgiveness, and trial.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Luke 11:2, the received text reads “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.” — Luke 11:2”. The assessed critical reading is “The prayer moves from “Thy kingdom come” directly to daily bread.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. No local Christian doctrine is lost; the immediate effect is confined to this textual difference.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Luke 11:2, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.” — Luke 11:2”. The assessed critical form is “The prayer moves from “Thy kingdom come” directly to daily bread.”.
- The received and critical forms are not the same at this locus. Therefore, if the competing critical form is original, the received form is secondary rather than the authentic wording at this place. The immediate consequence is: At Luke 11:2, the received text reads “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.” — Luke 11:2”. The assessed critical reading is “The prayer moves from “Thy kingdom come” directly to daily bread.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. No local Christian doctrine is lost; the immediate effect is confined to this textual difference.
- If the received form at this place is secondary rather than original, then the authentic Hebrew/Greek text was not kept pure at this place in the received textual tradition; therefore the unqualified confessional preservation claim must be denied or redefined.
Ultimate preservation consequence
If the competing reading is original and the received reading is secondary, then God did not preserve and keep pure the authentic text at this place in the received textual tradition. The unqualified confessional claim that Scripture was kept pure in all ages must therefore be denied or redefined.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized VersionReceived Greek reading
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standardssupplied PDF pp. 44 — Westminster proof-text and translation comparison
- German Bible Society — The Sixth Edition of the Greek New TestamentCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
Passage: Luke 11:2
Received reading: “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.”
Principal competing reading: The prayer moves from “Thy kingdom come” directly to daily bread.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.” — Luke 11:2
After the petitions for the Father’s name and kingdom, the received Luke adds “Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.” Modern critical editions omit the line, giving Luke a visibly shorter prayer than Matthew.
No one disputes that Jesus taught this petition; it stands in Matthew 6:10. The question is whether Luke recorded it on this occasion. Because the Lord’s Prayer was memorized and repeated, a copyist could readily bring Luke into conformity with the familiar Matthean form. The longer Luke includes several such points of agreement, and their cumulative pattern strengthens the harmonization argument.
But liturgical familiarity can preserve as well as expand. A well-known line may be omitted when an exemplar skips between adjacent imperatives or when a regional prayer form becomes shorter. The petition’s presence across the ecclesiastical tradition cannot be dismissed merely by naming worship as a corrupting force.
Kingdom and will
The line explains what the coming of the kingdom seeks: earthly obedience corresponding to heaven’s ready submission. It does not ask creatures to make God sovereign; it asks that his revealed rule be acknowledged and performed.
Jesus embodies the prayer in Gethsemane. “Not my will, but thine, be done” is not resignation to impersonal fate. It is filial obedience through anguish. Disciples who pray Luke 11:2 are asking for that same reordered desire in households, churches, labor, and public life.
The received petition should remain. It forms a coherent sequence, is fully dominical, and belongs to the church’s transmitted Luke. The fact that Matthew contains it is a credible explanation of addition but not proof. Synoptic authors can preserve the same words because Jesus spoke them, not only because scribes copied sideways.
The critical prayer remains sound but abbreviated. Its kingdom petition implicitly includes God’s will, and no doctrine depends upon Luke being the sole witness to the line. Textual loss would nevertheless matter because inspired repetition is not dispensable.
The petition’s close binds worship to life. Hallowing God’s name without doing his will becomes religious speech. Asking for the kingdom while protecting disobedience becomes contradiction. The received Luke lets the prayer expose both evasions before turning to bread, forgiveness, and trial.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 6:9–13; 26:39–44; Luke 11:1–4; 22:39–46; Psalm 103:19–21.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-2098
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 1st century · Date Range
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Passage, principal readings, and stated editorial comparison checked against Scrivener’s received Greek text and the SBLGNT text and apparatus; exhaustive manuscript collation remains open. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation. Supplied-source audit completed in Core 0.6.3. Accepted local notes were matched by canonical passage and manually bounded; source claims remain attributed where current apparatus verification is pending.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis. Biblical readings are short scholarly quotations; cited editions and digital witnesses retain their stated rights and access conditions.
- Known limitations
- This staging record summarizes the principal variation unit and representative evidence. It is not a fresh collation of every extant manuscript, version, lectionary, or patristic citation.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Luke 11:2 II — “Thy Will Be Done, as in Heaven, So in Earth”: Does the Petition Belong?,” VAR-2098, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas