Our Father Missing text?

  • Thread starter Thread starter anrmenchaca47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anrmenchaca47

Guest
Good Morning. I have a question. I was reading Matthew 6 which includes instructions on how to Pray (i.e., the Our Father) and I crossed referenced it with the Greek version and what I found was that the Greek includes “for the kingdom and the power and glory…” and in Matt it doesn’t. Why is that? Thanks.
 
It was added to Greek texts. Matthew’s gospel was not originally written in Greek, it was written in Aramaic.
 
I read - that one of the translations -
it should read - “ deliver us from the evil one “
 
anrmenchaca47 said:
the Greek includes “for the kingdom and the power and glory…” and in Matt it doesn’t. Why is that? Thanks.
Click to expand...
from the article linked below;
“Catholics do not believe that the words were part of this most perfect prayer Jesus gave to his disciples. Also, the Church does not believe that the phrase (or doxology) was part of the early Scriptures. The fourth-century translation of Greek into Latin by St. Jerome did not include it. One explanation has been advanced about how the phrase got into some translations: A scribe or monk copying the Scriptures was so inspired by the Our Father prayer that he wrote, “For thine is the kingdom … ,” glorifying God, in the margin of the page. It was then eventually added as part of the Lord’s Prayer when other copies of the Scriptures were made.”
https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/S...ID/23463/The-Our-Father-and-the-doxology.aspx
 
Last edited:
It’s worth noting that when we say the Our Father at mass the doxology* follows close behind. 🙂

(Grumble grumble Autocorrect grumble grumble)
 
Last edited:
anrmenchaca47 said:
I should then look to the Aramaic text correct?
Click to expand...
No. There isn’t an Aramaic text. There is no evidence that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and there is literally zero Aramaic texts of Matthew in all of the texts that have been transmitted to us. In addition, most linguists would agree that the style of Matthew indicates that it is not a translation into Greek. This is a common myth, but it is substantiated by very poor evidence, essentially an off-hand comment by Papias that cannot be corroborated.
 
Last edited:
Hereiam said:
It was added to Greek texts. Matthew’s gospel was not originally written in Greek, it was written in Aramaic.
Click to expand...
We don’t know for certain if it was originally written in Aramaic. To my knowledge, I only know of one church father that commented it being originally in Aramaic.
 
So then what was the original language if it wasn’t in aramaic then? Because St. Jerome translated from Greek to Latin. So then the question remains how did it get to Greek if there was no evidence of it being written on Aramaic?
 
Hereiam said:
Matthew’s gospel was not originally written in Greek, it was written in Aramaic.
Click to expand...
Matthew’s Gospel as we know it today was written in Greek. There may or may not have been an earlier Aramaic text known as “Matthew’s Gospel”, and even if there was, we don’t know what was in it.

[Add]
Apologies to @Hodos – I hadn’t seen your post #7 when I wrote this.
 
Last edited:
I’ve searched using the Biblehub and it includes the doxology. What gives?
 
Last edited:
There are multiple textual traditions even within the greek. My understanding is that the doxology was a gloss that became included in one of the text traditions/copies while it’s not present in some of our actual more ancient sources or copies of the text that come from other sources.

We have some scripture experts who I’m sure can explain it better.
 
anrmenchaca47 said:
I’ve searched using the Biblehub and it includes the doxology. What gives?
Click to expand...
You may be looking at the Textus Receptus, a text now considered defective and the more recent critical editions are more reliable. Compare against Nestle-Aland or UBS.

The reason modern Bibles do not have the doxology is because the most ancient texts and the best critical editions do not have it. You will not find it, for instance, in UBS4. It will be noted instead in the textual apparatus.
 
Last edited:
I was at a Protestant outdoor wedding yesterday (Bride is Catholic and probably doesn’t realize she shouldn’t have gotten married outside of a church but that’s a whole nother issue) and when we all said the Our Father, and you could tell that half of the guests were Catholic when they stopped before the doxology and then jumped back in, and after the reading we all said “thanks be to God.”
 
BartholomewB said:
40.png
anrmenchaca47:
I’ve searched using the Biblehub and it includes the doxology. What gives?
Click to expand...
Yes, you’re right. I don’t know how I missed that. They put the doxology inside angle brackets, though, which presumably indicates a doubtful text, in line with @Wesrock’s and @porthos11’s posts.

Matthew 6:13 Interlinear: 'And mayest Thou not lead us to temptation, but deliver us from the evil, because Thine is the reign, and the power, and the glory -- to the ages. Amen.
Click to expand...
There you go. The angle brackets, according to the site’s notation, refers to a variant text from the Byzantine Majority tradition, which also underlies the Textus Receptus used by the King James version, but is not found in the most ancient texts, and therefore not put in the main body of the most current critical editions.

It is most likely a liturgical text, used much like it is today in the Ordinary Form, which found its way into early New Testament manuscripts, possibly due to copyist error.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top