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
> “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.
Variant class
Omission / addition
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The exact TR reading has not yet been entered in the structured field.
Authorized Version
“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” — Matthew 6:13
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.
Historical annotation witness
Erasmus’s Annotationes
Erasmus’s printed Greek text, his Latin annotation, and the Research Center’s evaluation are distinct evidence. Each edition remains separately identified because Erasmus revised the Annotationes across his five editions.
Not yet assessed. No inference about Erasmus’s silence has been made. A Latin annotation and translation will appear here only after an edition and exact locus have been verified.
The Erasmus annotation audit has not yet been completed for this locus. Do not infer from this status that Erasmus was silent.
Westminster and Dutch annotation witnesses
Westminster Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
Dutch Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
No distinct NA28 reading has been entered; the received and NA28 texts may agree at this unit.
Translation or explanation
The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of the variation unit. The note grounds the relevant decision in the weight and distribution of external attestation, the likelihood of scribal or liturgical expansion; 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., note on Matthew 6:13
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 Matthew, 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
The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
Doctrinal analysis
Exegetical or interpretive consequence. The record does not establish that the variant by itself removes an entire Christian doctrine; explicit wording, exegesis, and cumulative testimony must be distinguished.
Controlled source-list matches
Doctrinal significance and Westminster use
This passage is listed in one or both controlling research files. Their claims are reported with exact source identity and confessional use; list membership does not by itself establish the original reading or the Research Center’s final entailment.
Doctrinally significant variant listLast half of Matthew 6.13
Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemised
Anonymous compilation — supplied source file pp. 3–4
Doctrine or doctrinal consequence identified by the source
Did Christ tell His disciples to conclude their prayers with the confession that the kingdom, the power, and the glory, are God's, and God's alone, or no? Is the Westminster Shorter Catechism, in Question and Answer 107, correct in deeming these words as authentic, and in saying that this very verse is the 'conclusion' of the Lord's Prayer, and that it teaches us that we are to give God all glory for having heard our prayers when we conclude them, and indeed, to conclude our prayers with the solemn 'Amen'? What indeed did the Lord teach us, exactly, about how to pray? This is the question. Is this really an indifferent matter whether these words are received as truly coming from our Lord and Saviour, as James White would have us to believe? Do we dare toss these words aside, on the ground and witness of the Egyptian text, a text whose manuscripts differ widely with one another, whose copyists did not have immediate access to the exact copies of the originals which were faithfully kept in the Byzantine churches, and whose manuscripts were the work of a Church that ultimately went apostate in the 5th century A.D.? We think the answer to be self-evident. We cannot but deem that the words of this doxology, delivered to us by the universal witness of the Byzantine Text and attested to by Fathers of the 2nd century, are authentic, are the very words of Christ Himself, and are very important to know in order that we may pray aright. Accordingly, these words of our Lord and Saviour must be included in the Holy Writ.
Source-reported readings and witness argument
Received reading reported
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Mat 6:13 KJV)
Critical reading reported
[Omit]
Manuscript and patristic support reported by the source
The omission of this verse by the Alexandrian Text is supported by Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Bezae. The inclusion of the phrase in the Byzantine Text is supported by the Diatessaron of Tatian in the 2nd century, the Didache of the Apostles in the 2nd century, Chrysostom in the 4th century, and by the universal witness of the Byzantine Text.
Editorial qualification: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Westminster proof-text listMatthew 6:13
A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standards
Seth Stark — supplied source file pp. 10–12
Textual wording marked in the source
Received/NKJV side: For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
Westminster doctrines and propositions supported
WLC 186 — What rule hath God given for our direction in the duty of prayer?
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- but the special rule of direction is that form of prayer which our Savior Christ taught his disciples, commonly called The Lord’s Prayer
WLC 195 — What do we pray for in the sixth petition?
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- In the sixth petition, (which is, And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,) Source marks this portion as relying only on this cited proof text
WLC 196 — What doth the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer teach us?
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, (which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.) Source marks this portion as relying only on this cited proof text
WSC 99 — What rule hath God given for our direction in prayer?
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- but the special rule of direction is that form of prayer which Christ taught his disciples, commonly called the Lord’s Prayer. Source marks this portion as relying only on this cited proof text
WSC 106 — What do we pray for in the sixth petition?
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- In the sixth petition, which is, And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, we pray that God would either keep us from being tempted to sin
WSC 107 — What doth the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer teach us?
Portion identified in the source as supported by this proof text:
- The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen
Editorial qualification: 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.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 6:13, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. Most modern critical editions move it to a note.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 6:13 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: The triune identity of the Father, the Son/Word, and the Holy Ghost.
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
— Matthew 6:13 The doxology of the Lord’s Prayer is absent from several early witnesses, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The full reading nevertheless has ancient attestation, scriptural form, structural fit, and continuous public use across the Greek church.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
Those facts explain addition well. The early omission is serious and should never be concealed.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
It stands in the Textus Receptus and the broad Greek church tradition, though copies vary in its exact length. A stable threefold core across the broad tradition is more significant than the existence of embellishments at its edges. The full reading nevertheless has ancient attestation, scriptural form, structural fit, and continuous public use across the Greek church.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 6:13. 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
Most modern critical editions move it to a note.
Passage-specific evidence from consulted works
Core 0.6.3 supplied-source audit complete: 3 passage-specific notes attached. Incidental citations and global-method sources are retained in the audit report rather than presented as local textual evidence.
The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy GospelsPassage-specific traditional-text argument
John William Burgon; edited by Edward Miller — supplied PDF pp. 76
Burgon directly discusses Matthew 6:13. The local discussion treats lectionary or liturgical use as part of his case for the traditional form and challenges the sufficiency or interpretation of the evidence used for the rival reading.
Accidental Causes of Corruption. V. Liturgical Influence. could never by possibility have resulted in the unvarying doxology found in MSS. of St. Matt. vi. 13,—‘For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.’ On the other hand, the inference from a careful survey of so many Oriental liturgies is inevitable. The universal prevalence of a doxology of some sort at the end of the Lord’s Prayer; the general prefix ‘for thine’; the prevailing mention therein of ‘the kingdom and the power and the glory’; the invariable reference to Eternity:—all this constitutes a weighty corroboration of the…
Editorial use: Burgon’s witness lists and textual judgments are historical source claims. They are useful evidence and argument, but this release does not represent them as a fresh collation against the current ECM/NA apparatus.
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. 10–12
At Matthew 6:13, it compares the NKJV/TR-oriented wording “And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.”” with the ESV/critical-text wording “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”” 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.
Doctrinally Significant Variants ItemisedAttributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Anonymous compilation — supplied PDF pp. 3–4
Last half of Matthew 6.13: It sets “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Mat 6:13 KJV)” against “[Omit].” Its stated doctrinal argument is that Did Christ tell His disciples to conclude their prayers with the confession that the kingdom, the power, and the glory, are God's, and God's alone, or no? Is the Westminster Shorter Catechism, in Question and Answer 107, correct in deeming these words as authentic, and in saying that this very verse is the 'conclusion' of the Lord's Prayer, and that it teaches us that we are to give God all glory for having heard our prayers when we conclude them, and indeed, to conclude our prayers with the solemn 'Amen'?xi What indeed did the Lord teach us, exactly, about how to pray? This is the question.… The compilation appeals to The omission of this verse by the Alexandrian Text is supported by Codices Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Bezae. The inclusion of the phrase in the Byzantine Text is supported by the Diatessaron of Tatian in the 2nd century,viii the Didache of the Apostles in the 2nd century,ix Chrysostom in the 4th century,x and by the universal witness of the Byzantine Text.
Editorial use: The compilation’s doctrinal inferences and witness claims are reported as its argument, not silently adopted as verified fact. Exact entailment is retained: weakening an explicit statement is not automatically a formal denial of the doctrine.
Conclusion
The Old Testament echo also bears weight beyond style. David’s praise in 1 Chronicles places greatness, power, glory, victory, majesty, kingdom, and exaltation in God. Jesus teaches his disciples to pray inside that scriptural world. The closing is not a generic church formula that could attach anywhere.
Public recitation has preserved the words in memory across languages and centuries. Liturgical use cannot prove originality, but neither is it a contaminant by definition. God appointed Scripture to be read and prayed in the church. The task is to distinguish faithful use from later embellishment without treating use itself as suspicion.
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.
Canonical-status rule: Physical printing is not canonical inclusion. If an edition prints a passage in double brackets while judging it secondary or non-original, it disagrees with the received text concerning the identity and extent of inspired Scripture.
Status: Established
Immediate textual or doctrinal consequence
At Matthew 6:13, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” — Matthew 6:13”. The assessed critical reading is “The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.”. 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 Matthew 6:13, the received Hebrew/Greek form is ; the Authorized Version represents it as “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” — Matthew 6:13”. The assessed critical form is “The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.”.
- 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 Matthew 6:13, the received text reads and its Authorized Version representation reads “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” — Matthew 6:13”. The assessed critical reading is “The received and current critical texts may agree at this unit; consult the full essay for any versional or apparatus-only variation.”. 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
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospelssupplied PDF pp. 76 — Passage-specific traditional-text argument
- A List of Omissions and Changes Found in the Critical Text to Verses Used as Proof Texts in the Westminster Standardssupplied PDF pp. 10–12 — Westminster proof-text and translation comparison
- Doctrinally Significant Variants Itemisedsupplied PDF pp. 3–4 — Attributed doctrinal and canonical-coherence argument
Read the full research essay and its sources
“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” — Matthew 6:13
The doxology of the Lord’s Prayer is absent from several early witnesses, including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It stands in the Textus Receptus and the broad Greek church tradition, though copies vary in its exact length. Most modern critical editions move it to a note.
Luke’s shorter form of the prayer has no doxology. Early Christian worship naturally adds praise to prayer, and liturgical endings can enter copied texts. The Didache gives a related but shorter ending, showing how early Christians used doxological language around the prayer.
Those facts explain addition well. They do not prove that every doxology in Matthew began at a worship lectern rather than in the Gospel.
The prayer’s own answer
The petitions move from God’s name, kingdom, and will to bread, pardon, and rescue. The received close returns everything to God: thine is the kingdom answers “thy kingdom come”; the power grounds every request; the glory answers “hallowed be thy name.” “For” gives the reason the disciples can pray at all.
The wording also echoes David’s praise in 1 Chronicles 29:11. Matthew’s Jewish-Christian setting makes that scriptural cadence natural. A doxology can be used in worship because it is Scripture; liturgical usefulness is not proof of liturgical origin.
Variation in form deserves notice. Some copies omit one member, add “of the Father,” or shift the Amen. Such variation can surround an original line as worship expands it. A stable threefold core across the broad tradition is more significant than the existence of embellishments at its edges.
Prayer ending in possession
The doxology does not inform God that the kingdom is his. It returns the petitioner from need to praise. Bread is asked from the King; pardon from the One with power; deliverance for his glory.
The early omission is serious and should never be concealed. The full reading nevertheless has ancient attestation, scriptural form, structural fit, and continuous public use across the Greek church. The received ending belongs. The prayer that begins “Our Father” ends by confessing that the kingdom, power, and glory were his before we asked and will remain his for ever.
The doxology’s variation is often used as a decisive sign of liturgical growth. It does show that worshippers handled the ending freely in some streams. Yet a stable text can attract expansions because it is loved. Added “of the Father and of the Son,” shortened members, or extra Amens may grow around an original core rather than create the core from nothing.
The Old Testament echo also bears weight beyond style. David’s praise in 1 Chronicles places greatness, power, glory, victory, majesty, kingdom, and exaltation in God. Jesus teaches his disciples to pray inside that scriptural world. The closing is not a generic church formula that could attach anywhere.
Public recitation has preserved the words in memory across languages and centuries. Liturgical use cannot prove originality, but neither is it a contaminant by definition. God appointed Scripture to be read and prayed in the church. The task is to distinguish faithful use from later embellishment without treating use itself as suspicion.
Sources and further reading
- 1 Chronicles 29:10–13; Matthew 6:9–13; Luke 11:1–4.
- Didache 8.2.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 6:13.
- John William Burgon, The Revision Revised.
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-1027
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 2026-07-22 · Exact Day
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Recovered project data; bibliographic and source-level verification remains record-specific. 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; cited sources retain their stated rights.
- Known limitations
- Staging record; independent review remains open.
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, “Matthew 6:13 — “Thine Is the Kingdom”: The Doxology of the Lord’s Prayer,” VAR-1027, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas