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 ends the prayer with “but deliver us from evil.” The critical text concludes after “lead us not into temptation,” while Matthew preserves the fuller antithetical petition.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
“Lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.”
Authorized Version
“And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.” — Luke 11:4
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
“Lead us not into temptation,” without the final deliverance clause.
Translation or explanation
“Lead us not into temptation,” without the final deliverance clause.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of 2 variation units within this record's range. The notes ground the relevant decisions in the weight and distribution of external attestation, possible theological pressure in transmission; the printed confidence rating represented here is {A}. 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 11:4, 11:4
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
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
Its antithetical structure is natural, its theology belongs to Luke, and its ecclesiastical attestation is not canceled by its presence in Matthew.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Luke 11:4, 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. The critical form ends after the first member. The rival remains a credible shorter form, so the conclusion should not rest on a claim that the critical prayer is incoherent.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Luke 11:4 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
Exegetical or interpretive consequence: Its antithetical structure is natural, its theology belongs to Luke, and its ecclesiastical attestation is not canceled by its presence in Matthew.
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 antithetical structure is natural, its theology belongs to Luke, and its ecclesiastical attestation is not canceled by its presence in Matthew.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Matthew contains the fuller petition, so the same harmonization question that surrounds Luke 11:2 returns at the close. Grammar permits both because the adjective’s form can be neuter or masculine in this construction. A scribe reciting the Lord’s Prayer could easily complete the familiar antithesis from Matthew or church usage.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
A scribe reciting the Lord’s Prayer could easily complete the familiar antithesis from Matthew or church usage. Its antithetical structure is natural, its theology belongs to Luke, and its ecclesiastical attestation is not canceled by its presence in Matthew.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Luke 11:4. 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. The critical form ends after the first member. The rival remains a credible shorter form, so the conclusion should not rest on a claim that the critical prayer is incoherent.
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. 44–45
At Luke 11:4, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.”” with the ESV/critical-text wording “and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation.” 43” 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
Nor should the fuller text become a charm recited against all hardship. The prayer asks for a life governed by the Father’s name, kingdom, will, provision, and forgiveness. Deliverance from evil belongs inside that allegiance.
Luke’s received prayer ends without Matthew’s doxology. That difference should be allowed to remain. Defending the final deliverance clause does not require making the two Gospel forms identical in every respect. The proper aim is to preserve Luke’s words, not to manufacture one composite prayer by default.
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 11:4, the received text reads “Lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.” — Luke 11:4”. The assessed critical reading is “Lead us not into temptation,” without the final deliverance clause.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
Necessary reasoning chain
- At Luke 11:4, the received Hebrew/Greek form is “Lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.”; the Authorized Version represents it as “And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.” — Luke 11:4”. The assessed critical form is “Lead us not into temptation,” without the final deliverance clause.”.
- 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 11:4, the received text reads “Lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.” and its Authorized Version representation reads “And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.” — Luke 11:4”. The assessed critical reading is “Lead us not into temptation,” without the final deliverance clause.”. The immediate consequence is that the critical text no longer states the received wording at this locus. The immediate local effect is exegetical or interpretive; this argument does not claim that a distinct Christian doctrine disappears from the verse.
- 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. 44–45 — 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 11:4
Received reading: “Lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.”
Principal competing reading: “Lead us not into temptation,” without the final deliverance clause.
Editorial status: Preliminary record accepted for staging; independent review remains pending.
“And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.” — Luke 11:4
The received form of Luke’s prayer closes with a complete contrast: “lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.” The critical form ends after the first member. Matthew contains the fuller petition, so the same harmonization question that surrounds Luke 11:2 returns at the close.
The Greek expression can mean deliverance from evil generally or from “the evil one.” Grammar permits both because the adjective’s form can be neuter or masculine in this construction. The petition needs no textual change to generate that interpretive question.
The shorter Luke has impressive early support. A scribe reciting the Lord’s Prayer could easily complete the familiar antithesis from Matthew or church usage. The repeated expansion of Luke toward Matthew across the prayer makes a cumulative case stronger than any one phrase viewed alone.
Trial, sin, and the tempter
God tempts no one to evil. The first clause asks that providence not bring disciples into a trial in which they are abandoned to their weakness. The second asks positively for rescue—from evil circumstances, sinful surrender, and the personal enemy who exploits both.
Luke’s narrative soon gives the prayer a face. Jesus tells the disciples in Gethsemane, “Pray that ye enter not into temptation.” He himself endures the trial faithfully while they sleep. Deliverance does not always mean avoidance of suffering; it means preservation from the evil that would make suffering an occasion for apostasy.
The received conclusion should be kept. Its antithetical structure is natural, its theology belongs to Luke, and its ecclesiastical attestation is not canceled by its presence in Matthew. The rival remains a credible shorter form, so the conclusion should not rest on a claim that the critical prayer is incoherent. “Lead us not” already petitions God for protection.
Nor should the fuller text become a charm recited against all hardship. The prayer asks for a life governed by the Father’s name, kingdom, will, provision, and forgiveness. Deliverance from evil belongs inside that allegiance.
Luke’s received prayer ends without Matthew’s doxology. That difference should be allowed to remain. Defending the final deliverance clause does not require making the two Gospel forms identical in every respect. The proper aim is to preserve Luke’s words, not to manufacture one composite prayer by default.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 6:9–13; Luke 4:1–13; 11:1–4; 22:39–46; James 1:12–15.
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-2100
- 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
- The line is identical in substance to Matthew 6:13 and was prominent in liturgical memory, making assimilation a substantial internal objection.
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 11:4 — “But Deliver Us from Evil”: The Disputed End of Luke’s Lord’s Prayer,” VAR-2100, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging, last revised 2026-07-22.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas