Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Introduction to Defending the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6
A short while ago Pastor Ken Klein asked about teaching from the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s Question #107, which reads, “What doth the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer teach us?”, seeing as the “conclusion” is omitted in all the modern Bible versions based on the Critical Text. (Cf. thread, The Critical Text and WSC Q #107.) It’s a good question, for if it’s not in the Bible, a) what’s it doing in the Westminster Standards, and b) why is there no investigation by the churches who use these Standards concerning this discrepancy, along with a public explanation to those officers / church members held to the Standards?
Concerning this portion of Scripture, I’m going to be looking at what the popular defender of the Critical Text [CT], Dr. James White says, in his book, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? [KJOC] (Bethany 1995), and comparing it with what the popular defender of the Textus Receptus [TR], John William Burgon says in his book, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Bible for Today, reprint). (This book is also available online at CCEL.)
Readers of the NIV will note that the margin says concerning verse 13b (For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen), “some late manuscripts” have it. Even worse, the ESV margin says, “some manuscripts add” it [emphasis mine], implying a blatant falsification. So what is the truth concerning this portion of our holy Scriptures? Such margin notes (and relegation of Scripture away from the text and into the margins as well) perplex and trouble young – and often old – believers. Do we have a sure word of God, they ask? Are these words (among many others in similar circumstances) genuine? When there is such disagreement between scholars and experts, how can I be sure my Bible is reliable?
I apologize up front for the lengthiness of this study, but, seeing as it pertains to the trustworthiness of the bedrock upon which the entire house of the Christian faith stands, it seems to be justified, at least in the eyes of careful students of these things – and in the eyes of Him with whom we have to do, whose word this bedrock is.
I will also add to those who defend the Prayer as it originally stood, Dr. E.F. Hills, quoting from his The King James Version Defended, and Dr. Thomas Holland, from his book, Crowned With Glory, and give links to some others. I realize this is sort of unfair to Dr. White, as his remarks in KJOC were not intended to be a thoroughgoing defense of his view, but just a popular presentation. Still, one can get an idea of the differing sides, and what they say.
In this study, I will only be looking at Dr. White’s remarks on Matthew’s version at 6:13, due to his publisher Bethany House’s limitation of quotes (per their “Fair Use” policy) to 250 words (I am not counting his Scripture examples or Metzger quote as his own work). In http://another study I will look at his remarks on the Prayer as it is in Luke 11:2-4, again comparing it to Burgon’s published remarks. These both will be exercises in considering evidences. There are some who fault me for writing at such length, as if I thought “the majority of words in…articles wins an argument!” No, it is that the topic warrants careful examination, as I noted two paragraphs up. I write not to “win arguments” but to defend the words of our Lord and Savior from being “scissored” out of our Bibles, seeing as He said that man shall live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matt 4:4) Is not every word of His precious? And did He not say, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away”? (Matt 24:35)
Need I say again I do not want to see this thread used as a means to heap insult, hostility, and slander on those who differ with the King James / Textus Receptus 1894 defense? That but shows a deficit of ability to mount a proper defense. Heat but no light. And even if our opponents indulge in the dark powers of slander, ridicule, contempt, hostility and falsehood, must we fight such fire with like fire? Can we not conduct ourselves with the dignity and grace that becomes the royalty of Heaven, citizens of the Kingdom of eternal glory, younger brothers and sisters of the Lord Christ? And have we not the power of truth, needing not earthly and devilish devices?
I will make some comments after – or possibly in the midst of – the presentations that follow. The study of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 will follow shortly, and separately.
A short while ago Pastor Ken Klein asked about teaching from the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s Question #107, which reads, “What doth the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer teach us?”, seeing as the “conclusion” is omitted in all the modern Bible versions based on the Critical Text. (Cf. thread, The Critical Text and WSC Q #107.) It’s a good question, for if it’s not in the Bible, a) what’s it doing in the Westminster Standards, and b) why is there no investigation by the churches who use these Standards concerning this discrepancy, along with a public explanation to those officers / church members held to the Standards?
Concerning this portion of Scripture, I’m going to be looking at what the popular defender of the Critical Text [CT], Dr. James White says, in his book, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? [KJOC] (Bethany 1995), and comparing it with what the popular defender of the Textus Receptus [TR], John William Burgon says in his book, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (Bible for Today, reprint). (This book is also available online at CCEL.)
Readers of the NIV will note that the margin says concerning verse 13b (For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen), “some late manuscripts” have it. Even worse, the ESV margin says, “some manuscripts add” it [emphasis mine], implying a blatant falsification. So what is the truth concerning this portion of our holy Scriptures? Such margin notes (and relegation of Scripture away from the text and into the margins as well) perplex and trouble young – and often old – believers. Do we have a sure word of God, they ask? Are these words (among many others in similar circumstances) genuine? When there is such disagreement between scholars and experts, how can I be sure my Bible is reliable?
I apologize up front for the lengthiness of this study, but, seeing as it pertains to the trustworthiness of the bedrock upon which the entire house of the Christian faith stands, it seems to be justified, at least in the eyes of careful students of these things – and in the eyes of Him with whom we have to do, whose word this bedrock is.
I will also add to those who defend the Prayer as it originally stood, Dr. E.F. Hills, quoting from his The King James Version Defended, and Dr. Thomas Holland, from his book, Crowned With Glory, and give links to some others. I realize this is sort of unfair to Dr. White, as his remarks in KJOC were not intended to be a thoroughgoing defense of his view, but just a popular presentation. Still, one can get an idea of the differing sides, and what they say.
In this study, I will only be looking at Dr. White’s remarks on Matthew’s version at 6:13, due to his publisher Bethany House’s limitation of quotes (per their “Fair Use” policy) to 250 words (I am not counting his Scripture examples or Metzger quote as his own work). In http://another study I will look at his remarks on the Prayer as it is in Luke 11:2-4, again comparing it to Burgon’s published remarks. These both will be exercises in considering evidences. There are some who fault me for writing at such length, as if I thought “the majority of words in…articles wins an argument!” No, it is that the topic warrants careful examination, as I noted two paragraphs up. I write not to “win arguments” but to defend the words of our Lord and Savior from being “scissored” out of our Bibles, seeing as He said that man shall live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matt 4:4) Is not every word of His precious? And did He not say, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away”? (Matt 24:35)
Need I say again I do not want to see this thread used as a means to heap insult, hostility, and slander on those who differ with the King James / Textus Receptus 1894 defense? That but shows a deficit of ability to mount a proper defense. Heat but no light. And even if our opponents indulge in the dark powers of slander, ridicule, contempt, hostility and falsehood, must we fight such fire with like fire? Can we not conduct ourselves with the dignity and grace that becomes the royalty of Heaven, citizens of the Kingdom of eternal glory, younger brothers and sisters of the Lord Christ? And have we not the power of truth, needing not earthly and devilish devices?
I will make some comments after – or possibly in the midst of – the presentations that follow. The study of the Lord’s Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 will follow shortly, and separately.
Last edited: