Peter of Laodicea on the Lord's Prayer

Peter of Laodicea (7th or 8th century?) created a commentary on Matthew that, as far as I have been able to determine, has been published only in Greek (link to 1905 publication, or at least, not in English).  As I'm compiling patristic commentaries on the Lord's Prayer, I was pointed to this work. I now offer my amateur attempt at a transcription and translation of his commentary on Matthew 6:9-13. 

Τότε πατὴρ ἡμῶν ὁ θεὸς χρηματίζει, ὅτε διὰ τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐπιφοιτήσεως τῆς υἱοθεσίας Χριστοῦ ἀξιωθῶμεν. ὁ γὰρ πατέρα καλῶν τὸν θεὸν ὀφείλει καθαρὸς εἶναι ἀπὸ ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ κληρονόμος τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν· θρασὺς δὲ ὁ μορφωθεὶς πρὸς τὸν διάβολον, λέγων πατέρα τὸν θεὸν, ὃν οὐ δοξάζει. εἰπὼν δὲ τὸ ἡμῶν ἕνα τοὺς πολλοὺς δείκνυσιν ὡς ἑνὸς σώματος, μιᾶς ἁπάντων οὔσης κεφαλῆς τοῦ θεοῦ· ὑπεμφαίνει δὲ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων εὔχεσθαι ὡς ὅτι πάντες ἀδελφοί ἐσμεν. 

Then God is called our Father, when through the visitation of the Spirit we have been deemed worthy of the adoption of Christ. For the one calling God Father ought to be clean from sins and an heir of the kingdom of the heavens; but bold is the one who has been formed toward the devil, saying that God is Father, whom he does not glorify. And by saying the “our,” he shows the many to be one, as of one body, God being the one head of all; and he also intimates the praying for one another, since we are all brothers.

τὸ δὲ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ὅταν εἴπῃ, οὐκ ἐκεῖ τὸν θεὸν συγκλείων τοῦτό φησιν, ἀλλὰ τῆς γῆς ἀπάγων τὸν εὐχόμενον καὶ τοῖς ὑψηλοῖς προσηλῶν. τὸ δὲ ἁγιασθήτω οὐ προστακτικῶς, εὐκτικῶς δέ, οἷον ἁγιασθείη, οὐχ ἵνα ἐκ βεβήλου ἁγιασθῇ, ἀλλ’ ἵνα ἡμῖν ἀποκαλυφθείσης τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ ἀξίως αὐτοῦ διδῶμεν ἁγιότητα ὀνομάζοντες θεόν. βασιλείαν δὲ θεοῦ ἢ τὴν μέλλουσαν τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀπόλαυσιν φησὶν ἢ τὴν διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος δωρεὰν ἢ τὴν δευτέραν αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν. ἐπειδὴ δὲ φύσει θεὸς ὢν ὁ Χριστὸς οἰκονομικῶς καλεῖται βασιλεὺς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἐπεύχονται οἱ πιστοὶ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀπίστους ἐλθεῖν, ἵνα εἰς Χριστὸν πιστεύσαντες βασιλέα ἴδιον ἐπιγράφωνται αὐτόν. 

And whenever he says the “in the heavens,” he says this not as shutting God up there, but as leading away the one praying from the earth and nailing him to the things on high.

And the “let it be hallowed” is not imperatively, but optatively, as, “may it be hallowed”; not so that it may be hallowed from being profane, but so that, his goodness having been revealed to us, we may fittingly give holiness to him, naming him God.

And by “kingdom of God” he means either the future enjoyment of good things, or the gift through the Holy Spirit, or his second coming. And since Christ, being God by nature, is called King economically as man, the faithful pray also that this may come upon the unbelievers, so that, having believed in Christ, they may inscribe him as their own King.

τὸ δὲ γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου τοῦτο δηλοῖ· ὥσπερ ἐν οὐρανῷ καθαρῶς καὶ ἀμέμπτως πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι πολιτεύονται, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐν τῇ γῇ ποίησον. ἢ οὕτως· ὥσπερ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἰσιν, οὕτω καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀξίωσον ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τοῦ πνευματικοῦ καὶ καθαροῦ σώματος. Ἐπιούσιον δὲ ἄρτον ἢ τὸν συνιστῶντα τὸ σῶμα ἡμῶν φησι, τουτέστι τὸν ἐφήμερον, ἤτοι τὸν ἐπιόντα καὶ προσδοκώμενον τοῦ πνεύματος ζωοποιὸν ἄρτον, τουτέστι τὸν μέλλοντα. ὠνοματοπεποίηται τοίνυν τὸ ἐπιούσιον ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἐπιέναι καὶ ἐπέρχεσθαι, ἢ τὸν μὴ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος οἰκεῖον, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀποδοθησόμενον ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι τοῖς ἁγίοις δὸς ἡμῖν ἤδη· ἢ ἐπείπερ οὐσία κυρίως ἐστὶν ἡ ἑστῶσα καὶ βέβαιος, οἷα ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν φύσις φοροῦσα τὸ κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ ἀοράτου θεοῦ, κατὰ τοῦτο λέγοιτ’ ἂν ὁ τῇ κυρίως οὐσίᾳ ὁμιλῶν ἄρτος, ἐπιούσιος θεὸς ὢν, λόγος, ζῶν ἄρτος. 

And the “Let your will be done” makes this clear: just as in heaven all the angels conduct themselves purely and blamelessly, so also make human beings on the earth [to do so].

Or thus: just as the angels are in the heavens, so also count us worthy, in the resurrection, of the spiritual and pure body.

And by “supersubstantial bread” he means either the bread that sustains our body, that is, the bread for the day; or else the coming and expected life-giving bread of the Spirit, that is, the future bread. Therefore the word “supersubstantial” has been named either from “to come on” and “to approach,” or [it means]: “Give us already the bread that is not proper to the present age, but that which is going to be given in the future to the saints.”

Or, since “substance” in the proper sense is that which stands firm and is sure, such as the nature of our soul, bearing that which is according to the image of the invisible God, according to this the bread that has dealings with the substance in the proper sense might be called “supersubstantial,” being God, Word, living bread.

εἶτα δυσωπῶν ὁ λόγος ἀμνησικακεῖν, συνειδότας ἑαυτοῖς ἁμαρτίας μετριάζειν διδάσκει τὸ τῶν ἴσων θέλειν τυχεῖν. φησὶ γάρ· καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν. πᾶν δὲ ἁμάρτημα ὀφείλημά ἐστιν· εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐνδύσηταί τις τὴν τῆς ἀμνησικακίας ἀρετήν, οὐ δύναται τυχεῖν ἀφέσεως. εἶτα διδάσκει μὴ παραιτεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀγῶνας, πλὴν μὴ ἐπιρρίπτειν ἑαυτούς· εἰ δὲ ἀνάγκη καλέσοι, δεῖ εὔχεσθαι τοῦ ῥυσθῆναι· ὁ γὰρ ἐν τῇ πάλη νικῶν καὶ μὴ ἐγκαταλειπόμενος οὐκ εἰσέρχεται εἰς πειρασμόν. πειρασμὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἧττα καὶ ἡ ἀπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου πλάνη· ὁ δὲ μὴ εἰσελθὼν εἰς δίκτυα πειρασμοῦ ἐρρύσθη ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. πονηρὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ διάβολος οὐ φύσει, ἀλλὰ προαιρέσει·οὐ γὰρ τῶν ἐκ φύσεως ἐστὶν ἡ πονηρία, ἀλλ’ ἐξ αὐτεξουσίου κακίας καὶ πονηρίας γίνεται· κατ’ ἐξοχὴν δὲ οὗτος καλεῖται διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς κακίας. τὸ δὲ ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις ἐν τισιν οὐ κεῖται μέχρι τοῦ ἀμήν.

Then, the Word, importuning [us] to be without remembrance of wrongs, teaches those conscious to themselves of sins to be moderate, by wishing to obtain equal things. For he says: “And forgive us our debts.”

And every sin is a debt; for unless someone puts on the virtue of not remembering wrongs, he is not able to obtain forgiveness.

Then he teaches not to decline the contests, yet not to throw ourselves upon them; but if necessity should call, it is necessary to pray to be delivered. For the one conquering in the wrestling and not being abandoned does not enter into temptation. For temptation is defeat and the deception from the devil; but the one who has not entered into the nets of temptation has been delivered from the evil one.

And the devil is evil, not by nature, but by choice; for wickedness is not among the things from nature, but comes to be from self-chosen evil and wickedness. And he is called this preeminently because of the excess of his wickedness.

And the “For yours is the kingdom and the power” is not found in some [copies] as far as the “Amen.”

What is particularly interesting here is that Peter recognizes the division among the Greek copies, with some including a doxology and others not including it.  Peter opts not to comment on this portion, possibly suggesting that he does not think it is original.  However, since he does not say that it is not original, we can only be confident that he was aware that there was, at his time, a textual variant in the Greek copies on this particular point.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Jacob of Serugh on the Lord's Prayer

Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386), Catechetical Lecture XXIII, On the Mysteries V, Section 11-18 (as provided here, with at least some corrections and notes by the present author):

11. Then, after these things, we say that Prayer which the Saviour delivered to His own disciples, with a pure conscience entitling God our Father, and saying, Our Father, which art in heaven. O most surpassing loving-kindness of God! On them who revolted from Him and were in the very extreme of misery has He bestowed such a complete forgiveness of evil deeds, and so great participation of grace, as that they should even call Him Father. Our Father, which art in heaven; and they also are a heaven who bear the image of the heavenly (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:49), in whom is God, dwelling and walking in them.

12. Hallowed be Thy Name. The Name of God is in its nature holy, whether we say so or not; but since it is sometimes profaned among sinners, according to the words, Through you My Name is continually blasphemed among the Gentiles (Ezekiel 36:22 as quoted in Romans 2:24; Cf. Isaiah 52:5), we pray that in us God's Name may be hallowed; not that it comes to be holy from not being holy, but because it becomes holy in us, when we are made holy, and do things worthy of holiness.

13. Thy kingdom come. A pure soul can say with boldness, Thy kingdom come; for he who has heard Paul saying, Let not therefore sin reign in your mortal body (Romans 6:12), and has cleansed himself in deed, and thought, and word, will say to God, Thy kingdom come.

14. Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth. God's divine and blessed Angels do the will of God, as David said in the Psalm, Bless the Lord, all ye Angels of His, mighty in strength, that do His pleasure. (Psalm 103:21; cf. Psalm 148:2) So then in effect thou meanest this by thy prayer, "as in the Angels Thy will is done, so likewise be it done on earth in me, O Lord."

15. Give us this day our substantial bread. This common bread is not substantial bread, but this Holy Bread is substantial, that is, appointed for the substance of the soul. For this Bread goeth not into the belly and is cast out into the draught (cf. Mark 7:19 or Matthew 15:17), but is distributed into thy whole system for the benefit of body and soul. But by this day, he means, "each day," as also Paul said, While it is called to-day. (Heb. 3:15)

16. And forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors. For we have many sins. For we offend both in word and in thought (cf. James 3:2), and very many things we do worthy of condemnation; and if we say that we have no sin, we lie (1 John 1:8), as John says.  And we make a covenant with God, entreating Him to forgive us our sins, as we also forgive our neighbours their debts. Considering then what we receive and in return for what, let us not put off nor delay to forgive one another. The offences committed against us are slight and trivial, and easily settled; but those which we have committed against God are great, and need such mercy as His only is. Take heed therefore, lest for the slight and trivial sins against thee thou shut out for thyself forgiveness from God for thy very grievous sins.

17. And lead us not into temptation, O Lord [TF note: I haven't italicized "O Lord," though perhaps he includes such in his quotation.]. Is this then what the Lord teaches us to pray, that we may not be tempted at all? How then is it said elsewhere, "a man untempted, is a man unproved;" [TF note: From Schaff's printing, we find the following footnote: "Tertull. De Bapt. c. 20: “For the word had gone before ‘that no one untempted should attain to the celestial kingdoms.’” Apost. Const. II. viii.: “The Scripture says, ‘A man that is a reprobate (ἀδόκιμος) is not tried (ἀπείραστος) by God.’” Resch, Agrapha, Logion 26, p. 188, quotes allusions to the saying in Jas. i. 12, 13; 2 Cor. xiii. 5, 6, 7, and concludes that it was recorded as a saying of our Lord in one of the un-canonical gospels (Luke i. 1), where it occurred in the context of the incident narrated in Matt. xxvi. 41, Mark xiv. 38.") and again, My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations? (James 1:2) But does perchance the entering into temptation mean the being overwhelmed by the temptation? For temptation is, as it were, like a winter torrent difficult to cross. Those therefore who are not overwhelmed in temptations, pass through, shewing themselves excellent swimmers, and not being swept away by them at all; while those who are not such, enter into them and are overwhelmed. As for example, Judas having entered into the temptation of the love of money, swam not through it, but was overwhelmed and was strangled both in body and spirit (Cf. Matthew 27:5). Peter entered into the temptation of the denial; but having entered, he was not overwhelmed by it, but manfully swam through it, and was delivered from the temptation (Cf. Luke 22:31-34). Listen again, in another place, to a company of unscathed saints, giving thanks for deliverance from temptation, Thou, O God hast proved us; Thou hast tried us by fire like as silver is tried. Thou broughtest us into the net; Thou layedst afflictions upon our loins. Thou hast caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and water; and thou broughtest us out into a place of rest. Thou seest them speaking boldly in regard to their having passed through and not been pierced. But Thou broughtest us out into a place of rest (Psalm 66:10-12); now their coming into a place of rest is their being delivered from temptation.

18. But deliver us from the evil. If Lead us not into temptation implied the not being tempted at all, He would not have said, But deliver us from the evil. Now evil is our adversary the devil, from whom we pray to be delivered. Then after completing the prayer thou sayest, Amen; by this Amen, which means "So be it," setting thy seal to the petitions of the divinely-taught prayer.

Notice that the "Amen" is not properly part of the prayer itself for Cyril, for he says, "after completing the prayer," and that there is no doxology present in the prayer.  Moreover, there is no other good explanation that can be offered for why Cyril would not comment on the doxology, if it were even liturgically present (as the "amen" was in Cyril's liturgy).  

Theodore of Mopsuestia (AD 350 – 428) wrote a commentary on the Lord's Prayer and on the two sacraments.  I reproduce, below, the end of Chapter I (Chapter II begins the subject of Baptism) in the form of a series of homilies (full text available in translation here):

He calls "to offend" the act of injuring by wickedness and obstinacy those who for the sake of perfection strive to lead a humble and pure life. Because of all this, after He had said, "And lead us not into temptation," He added: But deliver us from evil, because the wicked Satan injures us much in all the above things, as he endeavours in different ways to do things through which he thinks that he is able to divert us from our love and choice of duty.

Our Lord embodied perfection of works in the above words of prayer and taught us clearly how we are to be, in what we are to be diligent, from what we have to flee, and what to ask of God. And our blessed Fathers who thought that, together with the right teaching and the true faith, we ought also to strive after a good life and good works, ordered this prayer for those who draw near to the gift of baptism so that side by side with an accurate doctrine concerning the creed of the faith they might through prayer so order our life as to possess that perfection which is required of those who receive the gift of baptism, and through which they are counted in the number of the citizens of the heavenly life, while still on this earth.

Endeavour now to keep clearly in your mind the things which you have learnt in short words from the Lord's prayer, and meditate upon them with diligence in order that, while still in this world and far from the next, you may imitate and follow the teaching of our Lord, and thus be worthy of the heavenly benefits in which we are all enabled to participate by the grace of the Only Begotten Son of God, to whom, in conjunction with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, now, always, and for ever and ever. Amen.

Notice that Theodore provides a sort of doxological conclusion to his chapter/homily, which has already begun the transition to the next topic of discussion.  There is, however, no mention of the Lord's Prayer containing any doxology, such as is found in the King James Version.

Jacob of Serugh (AD 452-521) also known as Jacob of Sarug or Mar Jacob has a homily on the Lord's Prayer.  In section XIII, he writes:

Deliver me from the enemy who fights with me, for I cannot conquer him without Your aid. Do not look to me to conquer in that great occasion of bloodshed. Take for Yourself the battle and the victory befitting You. Deliver me from it and let the crown and fame be Yours, and neither attribute to me triumph, nor victory. Deliver me from it and let the entire glory of the athlete be reserved for You, for You have conquered the enemy. Deliver me from it and let defeat pursue me, for I confess, I have already been defeated – You conquered me. Without You I cannot conquer in battle. Let me not be tested, deliver me from it without trial. In mercy, deliver me from Satan who fights with me, for all the victories You shall take befit You. Deliver me from him (i.e. Satan), for Yours is the power and the kingdom and the authority – and also the glory. And also when one conquers – whatever he conquers – he does so by You, for all strength and power belong to You.

This is then followed by section XIV, in which a summary of the Lord's Prayer homily is provided.  You will notice that there is some kind of doxological content at the end of the discussion of "deliver us from the Evil One."  It is not, however, discussed in the same way as the the petition is discussed, so it is not clear whether Jacob sees this as a kind of liturgical flourish on top of the prayer, or whether it is properly part of the prayer.  If the latter, it should be noted that it is similar to, but not the same as the KJV's doxology, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."  The main differences are the inclusion of "authority" as well as "strength" (But compare Daniel 2:37) and the exclusion of the durative "for ever" and the affirmative "amen".   

Tertullian, On Prayer - Some Highlights

The following quotations are from the translation of Tertullian's On Prayer, as translated by Alistair Stewart-Sykes in "Tertullian, Cyprian, & Origen: On the Lord's Prayer" published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press, as volume 29 of their Popular Patristic Series.  My comments follow each section.  One overarching observation, however, is that although Tertullian goes in detail through the Lord's Prayer, and discusses other New Testament teachings on prayer, such as head coverings for women, Tertullian does not bring up the doxology of the Lord's Prayer, which is found in the majority of later manuscripts of Matthew's gospel.  

Section 1, p. 41:

Whatever was of the old has either been transformed, as has circumcision, or else completed, as the remainder of the law, or fulfilled, as prophecy has been, or perfected as is faith itself.

Tertullian does not spell it out here, but this seems to be an early reference to baptism taking the place of circumcision.

Section 1, p. 42:

Therefore the words in which John taught them to pray are not extant, because earthly things should yield to heavenly.

Notice the point behind Tertullian's point.  The reason for what is recorded in the New Testament is to found the New Testament church and its religious practices.  That's why John's teachings on prayer aren't provided to us, because they were not meant for us.

Section 1, p. 42:

Therefore let us consider, blessed ones, his heavenly wisdom firstly regarding his instruction to pray in secret, by which he both demands that a person believe, in that he he should be confident in the ability of almighty God to hear and to see in houses, and indeed in a hidden chamber, and desires a proportionate faith, that he should trust him who is everywhere to hear and to see, and should offer his devotion to him alone.

Notice that what Tertullian is saying is that we should offer the devotion of prayer to God alone.

Section 2, pp. 42-43:

For that matter the Lord most frequently proclaimed to us that God is Father, indeed, he also demanded that we should call nobody "father" on earth, except him whom we have in heaven.

Considering how much Roman Catholics try to downplay this particular command, it is interesting to see Tertullian doubling down on it.

Section 2, p. 43:

However, when we say "Father" we are also naming God in a form of address which demonstrates both devotion and power. Moreover the Son is invoked in the Father, for he says: "I and the Father are one". Nor is the mother, the church, neglected since the mother is found within the Father and the Son, for the name of the Father and Son find their meaning in her. Therefore under one term and with one name we honor God along with those who are his, both recalling God's commandment and scorning those who have forgotten the Father.

Notice that it does not even occur to Tertullian to say that Mary is our mother, or anything like that.  Instead, he focuses on the church being our mother.

Section 3, p. 44:

Besides this, as regarding our own request, when we say, "Let your name be hallowed," we ask that it be hallowed among us who are in him and, at the same time, in others whom the grace of God still awaits, so that we should be obedient to the command to pray for all, even for our enemies. Consequently, as a result of this terse expression, we do not say "Let it be hallowed in us," but manage to say: "in all people."

Notice Tertullian making the distinction between believers and unbelievers as being God's grace.  It's hard to tell how consistent he is on this point, but it's certainly a valid distinction.

Section 7, p. 47:

The Lord knew that he alone was without wrong, so he taught us to pray: "Pardon us our debts."

Once again, notice that it does not occur to Tertullian that there might be people, such as the mother of our Lord, who are sinless.  The Pelagian errors were apparently not yet propagated.

Section 8, p. 48:

For he did not order even Abraham to make a sacrifice of his son for the sake of putting his faith to the test, but of demonstrating it, so that he might provide an example of the instruction which he would in time law down, that one should not hold even one's children more precious than God.

The first part of this claim is thought-provoking.  Certainly, God already knew what Abraham would do, so it's true that the main purpose was the demonstration of Abraham's faith. 

Section 9, p. 49:

God alone could teach us the manner in which he would have us pray. Therefore, the practice of prayer is laid down by him, and when it was brought forth from the divine mouth it was animated by his spirit.

This is also a key observation.  We cannot make up our own worship practices.  God alone can teach us how to worship him.  Thus, the justification for any worship practice must come from God.

Section 14, p. 51:

Hereditary criminals, aware of their ancestral guilt, they dare not lift them up to the Lord lest some Isaiah should cry out, lest Christ should shrink from them. But we do not simply lift them up but spread them out in imitation of the passion of the Lord, so confessing Christ as we pray.

Tertullian evidently believes that guilt can be inherited.

Section 15, pp. 51-52:

But since we have touched upon one matter of empty expression it will not be irksome to observe other practices likewise, which are reasonably to be discredited as vanity, since not one of them is authorized by any injunction, whether dominical or apostolic. Things of this nature are to be considered not religion but superstition, they are affected and forced, are not reasonable service but fussiness, and should surely be suppressed, if only because they put us on a level with the gentiles. For it is the practice of some of them to make their prayer with their coats removed. It is thus that they attend their idols. But if this were the right thing to do, surely the apostles would have included it when they taught on the manner of prayer, unless some might think that Paul left is cloak behind with Carpus when he was praying! Perhaps God might not hear those with their coats on, God who listened to the saints in the furnace of the Babylonian king when they prayed in their pantaloons and their hats!

Notice the need for rules about worship to come from the Lord or the apostles.  Notice also that the absence of such a rule proves its lack of importance.

Section 16, p. 52:

And again, there are those whose custom is to sit down then the prayer is sealed. I perceive no reason, except one which children might offer. What is it? If Hermas, whose writing is called The Shepherd, or something like that, had not sat upon his bed when his prayer was finished but had done something else, would we claim that this too should be made an observance. Surely not. He says this simply as part of the story, and not as an instance of discipline. Otherwise we would only be able to pray in a place where there was a bed, and it would make it contrary to Scripture if anyone sat on a chair or a bench.

It seems to me that Tertullian does not accept the authority of the Shepherd of Hermas, but at the same time he seems to suggest that it is being treated like Scripture.

Section 16, p. 53:

Since it is disrespectful to sit down in the presence of, and in spite of the presence of, one who is greatly to be revered and esteemed, how much more is it irreligious to act in such a way when in the sight of the living God, whilst the angel of prayer is still standing by? Or are we protesting to God because prayer has tired us out?

Reverence is certainly an important aspect of worship.  I would note to oppose Tertullian here, that it seems that the apostles allowed seated worship (see James 2:3 for example).

Section 21, p. 56:

Those who allow immunity of the head to virgins seems to make their case on the basis that the apostle does not mention "virgins" but "women" as being veiled, thus not mentioning gender by saying "females" but rather the class of the gender, by saying "women".

This distinction may also be one of the reasons that Mary was so surprised to be told that she was blessed among "women", since she had not taken that step toward being a woman as distinct from a maiden. 

Section 23, p. 60:

However, the custom received is that on the Lord's day of resurrection alone we should avoid not only this [TF: in context, this refers to kneeling], but every attitude of concern, postponing business matters as well so that we might yield no place to the Devil. The same is true in the period of the Pentecost, which we likewise mark through the dignity of rejoicing.

It's interesting to notice the day or rest treatment that the Lord's day is being given, though it's not perfectly clear to me if he means every Sunday or only once annually.

Lord's Prayer in a Papyrus (Probable Amulet)

Brent Nongbri in “The Lord’s Prayer and XMΓ: Two Christian Papyrus Amulets,” The Harvard Theological Review, vol. 104, no. 1, 2011, pp. 59–68 (JSTOR), presented a papyrus tentatively dated to the 6th or 7th century.  The papyrus is thought to have been an amulet papyrus, something folded up and worn on the body of the person who owned it.  The text of the Lord's Prayer on the papyrus ends (as in other early witnesses) without the doxology familiar to KJV readers.  This is the opposite of what one's expectation would be if (1) this was intended as being worn for the purpose of having some kind of special power and (2) if the person who made it thought that the prayer included the doxology.  The best explanation seems to be that this early witnesses (identified as P.CtTBR inv. 4600 in the article) was created by someone who did not think that the doxology was a part of the Lord's Prayer.  Of course, it is not certain that this was an amulet (only "probably an amulet" according to the article).  The papyrus itself is not the best possible witness to the text of the Lord's Prayer for lots of reasons (there is some wear and tear, and poor spelling).  Nevertheless, if one holds that the doxology was originally part of the Lord's Prayer, this kind of document seems hard to explain. 

Doxology or Devil - The debate over the ending of the Lord's Prayer

In an article in the Puritan Reformed Journal (2021), "Doxology or Devil: A Case for the Longer Ending of the Lord's Prayer," OPC Pastors Brett Mahlen and Christian McShaffrey provided an attempt to defend the reading of Matthew 6:13 found in the King James Version, though not as the main text reading most recent major English translations.  Subsequently, they were interviewed by pastor Jeff Riddle (not OPC) for what I believe is his vlog on this particular topic (link to article)(link to video).  As I've recently had a video episode on the same topic without the benefit of having heard the presentation of Mssrs. Mahlen, McShaffrey, and Riddle (MMR), I thought it prudent to provide a few comments on the material they provide.  I refer to MMR throughout, whether referring to the article that didn't include Riddle, or the video, which did.

The article begins with an important concession, namely that the question of whether "for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is original is a question that obtains its answer through textual criticism.  They specifically admit: "That is a question that can only be answered through textual criticism." (p. 21)

Unfortunately, the rest of the article does not pass textual critical muster.  The arguments may be summarized as follows: (1) a rejection of the "shorter is better" principle of textual criticism; (2) an analysis of the internal evidence; (3) thematic considerations (a second category of internal evidence); (4) Greek manuscripts; (5) Other Ancient Witnesses (a first category of external evidence); (6) Liturgical Use (a second category of external evidence); (7) Roman Catholic Usage (a third category of external evidence); (8) Reformation era usage (a fourth category of external evidence); (9) textual reconstruction (an argument about/against Westcott and Hort); (10) tomorrow's text (some discussions about the future of the text in light of the coherence-based genealogical method).

It's not clear whether MMR understand the "shorter is better" principle. As explained by Jeff Miller ("Breaking the Rules: Lectio Brevior Potior and New Testament Textual Criticism"), this principle of textual criticism originated with Johann J.  Griesbach (who died in 1812, before Brooke Foss Westcott's birth in 1825).  Miller goes on to explain that this principle is more of a description than a prescription.  Today, we might call it a rule of thumb.

Worse for MMR, Miller points out that this principle has been essentially abandoned by contemporary textual criticism, despite its presence in relatively recent descriptions of textual criticism.  While shorter readings are often still preferred over longer readings, it is not simply on the grounds that they are shorter.  

MMR argue that the principle is "based on the assumption that ancient copyists were more prone to add material to Scripture than accidentally omit." (p. 22)  MMR challenge this on the basis that they believe ancient scribes would have been worried about the warnings of Revelation 22:18 against additions.

Let's consider the Revelation 22:18 point first.  If MMR are right that essentially the TR reading of Revelation 22 is original, while Revelation 22:18 provides a warning against additions, Revelation 22:19 provides an even stronger warning against subtractions.  Adding (per vs. 18) will result in plagues, but removing (per vs. 19) will result in a loss of heaven itself.  Assuming scribes were concerned by Revelation 22's warnings, it would have been rational for them to err on the side of addition rather than subtraction.

Moreover, we may rightly question whether scribes interpreted Revelation 22 to be referring to all of Scripture or only the book of Revelation itself.  However, even assuming they interpreted it as applying to all of Scripture, the warnings favor a strategy of erring on the side of addition rather than on the side of subtraction: better to receive a plague than to lose one's place in heaven.

There is, however, a still more fundamental error in MMR's response.  The question is not whether scribes are more likely to deliberately expand the text or accidentally reduce the text.  The question is what scenario best explains the omission or insertion of text at this point.

In many cases, accidental omission is the most obvious explanation of a textual variant, particularly when the omission starts after a series of letters that are the same as the last few letters of the omitted material, and when the amount of omitted material is relatively short (less than a few lines).  Other cases where accidental omission are fairly certain are when the omitted word or letter renders the sentence or word meaningless or contextually nonsensical.  

This particular variant does not fall neatly into either of those categories.  

There is another option.  Another case where accidental omission might be expected to occur would be when there is some parallel verse (for example, in the synoptic gospels) that the scribe may have in mind and consequently may accidentally reproduce from memory of the parallel, rather than from the scribe's exemplar.    

In this case, the parallel account is in Luke's gospel, and there indisputably the Lord's prayer ends without the traditional doxology (see Luke 11:4).  So, one could imagine a scribe more familiar with the reading in Luke who might therefore truncate Matthew's version to conform to his memory.

There are a few problems with this, primarily that there is no reason at all to suppose the Luke's account would have a priority of memory for a scribe copying Matthew.  Secondarily, there is an observed tendency of scribes to be conservative of the text, meaning that they are more reluctant to remove something that they think is extraneous than they are to include something that think might be extraneous.  These suspected insertions were sometimes labelled with markings (see this discussion).  The same or similar markings were apparently sometimes used to separate the main text from marginal notes.  It is not hard to understand how a copyist failing to transcribe these markings could create a copy that shows material as main text material, where his exemplar had the material marked off.  It is thought that this could explain the suspected insertion at John 5:4 regarding the angel troubling the waters.

The accidental inclusion of the doxology into the text would be expected to occur because of a scribe inserting a doxology in liturgical use into the text, either from memory, as part of a lectionary, or initially as a marginal note.

MMR state: "The authors refuse to believe that the vast majority of copyists did their work with either a well-meant or subversive intent to alter the text of Scripture."  (p. 23)  We agree with this statement, because it is much more likely that the doxology was added from a well-meant intent to preserve the text of Scripture.  For the scribes in the Byzantine tradition from A.D. 1100 onward (the scribes who produced the vast majority of the extant copies), it is not necessary to speculate anything about their sincerity.  It seems likely that they had at least some exemplars that included the doxology, and it was also embedded in their liturgical tradition.  So, it would be unsurprising if they produced their copies blissfully unaware of the textual variant issue.

When it comes to analyzing the "internal evidence," MMR skip over the grammatical considerations of the text itself, which should be the usual starting place.  It's worth pointing out that kingdom, power, and glory fit Matthew's vocabulary.  The word, "Amen," is found in Matthew, though usually with a different significance.  The expression, "glory for ever, amen," seems more closely aligned the usage of the apostles and other New Testament authors in their epistles.  For example:

Jude 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

1 Peter 5:11 To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen

Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Hebrews 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Phillippians 4:20 Now unto God and our Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Perhaps because the immediate grammatical context does not provide a strong indication one way or another (though the use of "glory for ever, amen," is not typical of the gospels), MMR turns to three other texts of Scripture: Luke 11:2-4, 1 Chronicles 29:11, and 2 Timothy 4:18.

Regarding Luke 11:2-4, MMR acknowledge that the text in Luke is different from that in Matthew, but argue that this "proves nothing other than the fact that Jesus taught His disciples how top pray on more than one occasion."  Once again, MMR seem to be overlooking a few things.

First, even if the event were the same, it is not necessary for the gospel authors to provide the same account in both places.

Second, MMR seem to be unaware of the multiple places where the TR reading at Luke appears to reflect interpolation from Matthew.  Papyrus 75 and B have shorter readings, for example, omitting material that would harmonize Luke and Matthew. 

Third, MMR casts the question in an odd way: "Thus, this is not a compelling reason why the text of Luke 11:2-4 should be used to modify the text of Matthew 6:13." No one, I hope, is suggesting that Luke should be used to modify Matthew.  Rather, the absence of the doxology from Luke is simply evidence suggestive of the non-originality of the doxology in Matthew's possibly parallel account.

Regarding, 1 Chronicles 29:11, MMR state: "Some critics have suggested that this prayer of David is the source of the alleged 'added' doxology, but this assumes that at least one ancient copyist thought it appropriate to modify the exemplar before him by adding material."  I'm not sure of which critic MMR are referring to, and they don't bother to cite a source.  

There are multiple possibilities for where the first scribe to include this material may have got it, and multiple possibilities for how it was included in the text.  Other places where there is a similar doxology are the apostolic concluding greetings I mentioned above.  Daniel 2:37 provides an example of a similar blessing, though not directed to God in that instance. 

As I mentioned above, the most natural guess is that it was introduced as a marginal note or a scribe writing the Lord's prayer from memory, remembering the familiar liturgical doxology.

I should point out that whatever the source, the familiarity of a liturgical form of the Lord's prayer to most scribes is something that could be expected to provided a repeated influence on the text.  For example, various ancient translations provide a different ending than that found in the TR. 

Regarding 2 Timothy 4:18, MMR speculate that this is an allusion to the Lord's prayer as it is found in Matthew, because of the use of "evil," "kingdom," "glory," "for ever," and "amen."  While this text could hint at a familiarity with the Lord's prayer in the form found in Matthew in the TR, we don't have any reason to suppose that Paul knew Matthew's gospel.   The gospel alluded to by Paul in 1 Timothy 5:18, for example is Luke, specifically Luke 10:7.  Moreover, Luke was one of Paul's companions.  So, if there is a form of the Lord's prayer that would be most familiar to Paul, one might expect Luke's form, rather than Matthew's form.

Furthermore, the doxologies of Paul and other New Testament writers informed the usage of doxologies by the churches in the patristic period preceding Chrysostom.  Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that the doxology is formed from Paul, rather than vice versa.

Turning to "thematic considerations," which is another category of the intrinsic evidence, MMR provide the argument that inclusion of "glory" in the Lord's prayer would provide a bookend to the warning against seeking the glory of men in Matthew 6:2.  This argument is probably one of the strongest arguments they offer, particularly if we expand it to also include "Father in heaven".

6 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.  But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. 

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

The problem with this argument, though, is that the immediately preceding them is "asking for things," and the immediately following argument is regarding forgiveness of sins.  The doxology tends to break that thematic flow, and the single reference to glory, while it would serve as a bookend, would break the comments about forgiveness of sins into a separate discussion, despite its excellent fit with "forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."  

MMR also emphasize that if the Lord's Prayer does not include the doxology, it would begin with the Father and end with the Devil ("deliver us from [the] evil [one]").  It's interesting that they adopt that translation for the purpose of this rhetoric.  As they acknowledge, they grabbed this piece of rhetoric from Dean Burgon.  This rhetorical flourish has little real impact: what better place would there be in the prayer for a reference to the devil (if that is what it is), than at the exact opposite end of the prayer.  Moreover, how could they possibly object to this bookending, since they allege that the original of the Lord's Prayer in Luke starts and ends like that!  If that's unfitting, and if Luke is really that way, then they have an argument with Jesus and with the Holy Spirit, not with us.

So, thematic considerations don't favor inclusion.

Regarding Greek manuscripts, MMR don't seem to have a very accurate understanding of the current state of textual criticism.  Instead, they seem to be following criticisms provided by TR supporters before the discovery of the papyri.

MMR state: "The witnesses deemed most valuable in modern text criticism are two Greek uncials ... called Sinaiticus and Vaticanus." MMR acknowledge that these two witnesses omit the doxology, but argue that "Such a joint witness is dubious," because these manuscripts differ with one another over 5,000 times.  

The high level of differences is normally thought of as evidence that these are independent witnesses.  So, suggesting that the differences somehow undermine the value of these witnesses is rather bizarre.

Furthermore, of course, the papyri have become a highly valuable asset in modern textual criticism.  For example, in Luke, Papyrus 75 provides a third apparently independent witness to the early state of Luke's text of the Lord's prayer, and demonstrates that the TR version of Luke's Lord's Prayer has been harmonized to Mathew's, rather than the reverse.

There are papyri witnesses of Matthew, but my understanding is that they are all rather incomplete, and that none includes Matthew 6.  Papyrus 1 includes part of Matthew 1, Papyrus 19 includes part of Matthew 10-11, and so on.  The closest fragment I could find where there is a textual difference between the TR and the main text of the NA27 is P64 at Matthew 5:22, where the papyrus supports the reading of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus against the later witnesses, including Washingtonianus.

Washingtonianus (W) is an early manuscript, probably from the fourth or fifth centuries.

While the papyrus witnesses do not address this text, there are other Greek manuscripts, such as the family of minuscules usually designated "family 1," that support the testimony of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

MMR say that because of the presence in W, the doxology's authenticity cannot be immediately dismissed.  W is useful evidence.  For example, W helps to demonstrate that some of the interpolations in the TR in Luke's Lord's Prayer are later than W, and confirms the pattern of interpolation over time that I've mentioned above.  That said, it's not conclusive and it is generally thought to be a little newer (maybe by a century) than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and consequently subject to some interpolations that they lack.

Turning to "other ancient witnesses," MMR appeal to the Didache.  They mention that the Didache was written well before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.  While that is true, the form of the Didache we have is largely derived from the twelfth century manuscript, Codex Hieroslymitanus (we know the age because the scribe dated the completion to June 11, 1056).  

While that version of the Didache has a doxology in the Lord's Prayer, it does not have the TR's doxology: it lacks the word "kingdom."  Furthermore, it is not clear that the version of the Didache found in that codex represents the original form of the work.  The earliest manuscripts of the Didache don't include section 8, which contains the Lord's Prayer.  What remains of the earliest translations (Coptic and Ethiopian) do not include this section and one further early translation has apparently been lost.  Shawn White has a helpful discussion (link).  Moreover, in the book referenced at that post, Shawn White provides an interesting insight into the doxology (pp. 42-43 of his book on the Didache):

The insight is that a number of doxologies are present as liturgical punctuation.  If this insight is correct, it can explain the Didache's doxology (different from TR Matthew) not as being intended to represent the text of Matthew, but rather as a liturgical addition thereto.  

MMR next refer to the writings of John Chrysostom, whose text of Matthew included the doxology.  It's quite true that Chrysostom's text had the doxology.  His writings provide evidence of that.  On the other hand, it is equally clear that the texts of Jerome and Augustine did not.  In fact, aside from the author of the incomplete commentary on Matthew (a commentary long erroneously ascribed to Chrysostom), Chrysostom seems to stand largely alone in the patristic period as a church father accepting this text as Scripture.  

MMR refer to the Apostolic Constitutions and the Peshitta. The Peshitta has an even longer doxology than the TR, stating "for ever and ever" as opposed to just "for ever."  Presumably, MMR are willing to acknowledge this as a scribe (or translator) adding to the text, which should give them pause about their theory that devout people would never do so.  There also seems to be some reversal of the wording regarding God's will being done "as in heaven so on earth," rather than "on earth as it is in heaven," which we might chalk up to translational style. It also appears that the "amen," which is typically found in Peshitta editions today may not be the most original reading (link to critical Peshitta).

MMR are notably silent of the fact that the doxology is absent from the Vulgate.  Thus,  when they say "the doxology was known to and used by Christians from the earliest of times," (p. 26) they are excluding most of the Western church.  Thus, Wycliffe's Matthew states: "and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen." (Wycliffe translated from the Vulgate of his day, and died 1384)  Likewise, Aelfric's Homily on the Lord's Supper (in Anglo Saxon) does not include the doxology (link).  Aelfric was an English abbot who died around 1010.  So, it's not quite as though the English-speaking Christians have been using this from the earliest days.    

Next, MMR comment on liturgical use.  MMR note that the doxology was not part of the responsive reading in the liturgy known as Chrysostom's; it was recited by the priest alone.  MMR fail to recognize that this may be because it is not actually part of the prayer, and instead suggest that this liturgical division "seems eventually to have evolved into a formal textual separation, as can be clearly observed in the Bible versions and liturgies of the Roman Catholic Church today."  It's hard to understand this explanation.  They claim this would have been the effect on "congregants" who were "never asked or allowed to recite the doxology."  It's absolutely baffling how the a Greek liturgy used in Greek churches would have any influence at all in the West on Western "congregants," much less on Western scribes and translators.  Moreover, in fact, the places that used the liturgy of Chrysostom are exactly the places that have the doxology in the text.

MMR claim that omission of the doxology from the Lord's Prayer was "a decidedly Roman Catholic distinctive." (p. 27)  On the contrary, though, the non-insertion of the doxology goes back far before a distinctively Roman Catholic church, back at least to the days of Augustine and Jerome.  Moreover, there is no meaningful association between the ancient Greek manuscripts that do not insert the Lord's Prayer and the Roman Catholic church.  The fact that one is named for the Vatican is because it was held in a library there for a long time.

MMR acknowledge that both the Vulgate and a number of very old Latin manuscripts omit the Lord's Prayer.  They mention Calvin, who observes with surprise that the clause is omitted by "the Latins."

MMR claim that "Including the doxology of the Lord's Prayer was a Protestant distinctive," (p. 28) but fail to acknowledge that this is only because the Protestants of that era believed that the Lord's prayer was in the original Greek, a question answered for them and us by textual criticism, not adherence to human tradition.  Moreover, of course, Roman Catholic priest Erasmus was the one who included it in the first published Greek text.

I skip over the section on "Reformation Era" church history, in which they comment on the Complutensian Polyglot, Tyndale's first English translation, and his subsequent revision, except to comment on one point.  They say, "We find no Protestant challenging it until the nineteenth century." (p. 29)

On the other hand, the Protestant Johann Jakob Griesbach challenged it in the 1770's (link):

I suppose the reason that MMR were unfamiliar with this work is that they have had a rather brief exposure to the topic of textual criticism, since Griesbach is one of the big names in textual criticism. 

MMR, in the section titled "Textual Reconstruction," go on to suggest that it was Westcott and Hort to which we owe the idea of considering the readings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus of high value.  Of course, they were valued before then, and it is not Westcott and Hort that brought them to prominence.  They quote something from Hort that describes the Textus Receptus as "vile" because it leans "entirely on late MSS."  

Westscott and Hort's first Green New Testament was published over 100 years after Griesbach's first. MMR call their work a project of "overthrowing the Protestant New Testament," which puts the least charitable spin on the efforts to restore the original text.

Finally, in the section about "Tomorrow's Text," MMR suggest that the coherence-based genealogical method (CBGM) may pose a challenge to the "text critical canons developed by Dr. Hort ...." (p. 30 - oddly, at p. 29 Hort is "Mr. Hort," and on p. 30 he is "Dr. Hort")  Of course, Hort didn't "develop" modern textual criticism, and the CBGM likewise doesn't challenge the principles of textual criticism: it just provides a more powerful tool.

MMR state: "the CBGM does seem to offer some hope concerning its potential re-inclusion." (pp. 30-31) I guess anyone can hope, but it would be very surprising indeed, given the weight of the evidence against originality, if the ECM were to adopt the doxology as original.  The absence from family 1 and the earliest uncials is hard to overcome.

MMR's conclusion accordingly fails, when they state: "As for the church, we have a much better confidence, knowing the doxology was known to-- and used by--- Christians from the earliest era of ecclesiastical history. Let all Christians therefore receive it as God's Word without qualification or mental reservation, and safeguard its place in our churches' standards." (p. 31) All this from the mere hope that textual criticism in the future may justify the text that has become traditional!

The video is not simply a regurgitation of the article.  MMR begin with introductions (about the first five minutes), and I will be quick to acknowledge that the OPC ministers have outstanding credentials as pastors, not to slight Pastor Riddle (the one Baptist) by any means.

One interesting point that the video emphasizes early on, but which has less emphasis (I think) in the article, is that the Westminster Standards adopt the doxology as part of the Lord's Prayer.  They do not explicitly say in the catechisms that this doxology is found in one place in the Bible, but they do teach the Lord's prayer as including this doxology.

Of course, the doxology is itself perfectly orthodox, so it should not cause any consternation.  Riddle states (about 10 minutes in) that if the doxology is not original to the Lord's Prayer then the catechism would be teaching adherence to "something unbiblical."  One wonders what Riddle thinks of the Heidelberg Catechism going through the Apostles' Creed! Does he find that to be "something unbiblical" as well?

In the video, regarding the Didache, there is this exchange (around 21 minutes):

Riddle: You guys point out in your article that there is some early evidence- quite early evidence in fact - for the doxology of the Lord's Prayer that shows its antiquity. It certainly wasn't something invented in, you know, the fifth century or something like that, so Christian, what are some of the other ancient witnesses to the authenticity of the doxology?

McShaffrey: Well, the earliest witness is a document called the Didache, which I think most conservative evangelicals would date to the first century.  And it contains the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer, and it even commands the reader to pray this three times a day and of course it was a document for discipleship of the early Christians. So, if oldest is best is really our law in text critical matters we have a witness predating the Sinai and Vatican manuscripts by a few hundred years, and I think it's an early, valid and probably catholic witness everybody has heard of the Didache and naybe even made use of it.

Riddle: Right

McShaffrey: But I know the modern critics - you know - say that's not a Greek manuscript of the New Testament text so it doesn't count.

Riddle: Yeah

Some necessary corrections:

1) I don't think enough "conservative evangelicals" know about the Didache to have any kind of educated guess as to its date of composition.  The "two ways" material from the beginning of the Didache is probably the oldest material in the work.  Moreover, there is a lot of speculation regarding how and when the Didache (in the form its usually found today) was composed.  

2) The Didache has a doxology after the Lord's prayer, but the doxology differs from the TR's doxology.  Moreover, as noted above, the Didache has doxology material elsewhere, which provides an indication that there may not be any intent to suggest that either Matthew's or Luke's Lord's Prayer had a doxology.  

3) In terms of manuscripts witnesses, the only essentially complete manuscript of the Didache is an 11th century manuscript.  Moreover, that is literally the only manuscript of the Didache that has the Lord's prayer.  So, to suggest that the Didache is an earlier witness to the Lord's prayer is misleading at best.

4) In terms of catholicity, note that although the work probably had some influence at one time, only one substantially complete manuscript survives.  So, the idea that it received some kind of widespread and universal reception does not seem sound.

5) As to the orthodoxy of the writers, there is an odd command to fast on Wednesday and Friday, rather than on Tuesday and Thursday.  Likewise, the discussion of the Lord's Supper does not appear to have any reference to Christ's death, which is certainly odd. Similarly the group that prepared this work seems to have had a regular office of prophet, with regulations on the office.  Finally, while faith is mentioned a few times, its salvific role seems to be only as an aid to good works (see Didache 16). To describe this as the catholic faith is a stretch.

6) Modern textual critics do not necessarily ignore witnesses other than the Greek manuscripts.  While those of us, like myself, who hold to the preservation of the text will not accept a reading that is not found in the Greek manuscripts, there is still value in ancient quotations from Scripture in establishing which reading is original.

I appreciate that Riddle brings up (around 23:30) the issue that the Didache's doxology does not match that of the TR.  His insistence that it is a reference to the doxology is misplaced, however.  For example, this same doxology is found in the Prayer after Communion (Didache 10), and a similar one is found in the Eucharist prayer (Didache 9).  Moreover, the Didache is not only difference because of the word "kingdom," but also because it lacks the "Amen."  

As an aside, I think it should fascinate my Roman Catholic readers to note that the author(s) of the Didache focus on the bread metaphorically in a way similar to what Augustine eventually did: "Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever."  After all, bread comes from grain and represents the Body of Christ, which is the Church.

Around 25 minutes in, Riddle comes to the same inference that I did, in reading the article, namely that it seems McShaffrey and Mahlen are suggesting that the manuscripts that lack the doxology arose due to liturgical influence.

Mahlen seems to acknowledge the point I raised above, namely that the non-recitation seems to support the idea that it was not actually part of Matthew's (or Luke's) Lord's Prayer. However, Riddle seems to urge the point set forth in the article, namely that a couple of hundred years of liturgical practice of not having the people say the doxology could lead to a scribal omission.

The challenge with the article's and Riddle's point is that there is not compelling evidence that liturgical practice of what is commonly called "The Divine Liturgy of Chrysostom," is much more ancient than Chrysostom himself, such that it would explain multiple seemingly independent scribal omissions in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

The video next turns to the doxology as a "distinctly Protestant reading," though obviously it is more accurately described as a distinctively Eastern Orthodox reading that was brought into Protestant Bibles by its prevalence especially in the later Greek manuscripts.

It's amusing to hear Pastor McShaffrey (I think it was him) speak of the "papish Polyglot," which omitted the doxology, in contrast to the work of Erasmus (with no acknowledgment that his first printing was literally dedicated to the pope).  Thankfully, Riddle points out a few minutes later that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic. 

I appreciate Riddle's acknowledgment that Tyndale's first edition did not include it.  I also agree with and appreciate Riddle's acknowledgment that the doxology is very unlikely to be found to be original by the ECM.  

Thankfully, Matthew is the very next book to which CBGM is to be applied, so we should not have to wait long to see.

I also appreciate the admission by Pastors Mahlen and McShaffrey that their article was intended to influence debate within the OPC on the subject.  I also appreciate their acknowledgment that their presbytery did not accept their motion to overture the General Assembly on the subject.

I would exhort Pastors Mahlen and McShaffrey to read more on the subject, as I think they could benefit from a more detailed understanding of the subject they have chosen to discuss/debate publicly. 

Post Script:

On the topic of "scribes would never," I think Pastors Mahlen and McShaffrey should familiarize themselves with the manuscripts a bit more.  Taking Matthew 6:13 as an example, manuscript 38 adds "των αιωνων" to make it "forever and ever," manuscript 157 adds "του π̅ρ̅ς̅ και του υιου και του αγιου π̅ν̅ς̅ " before "forever," while manuscript 740 adds "ου π̅ρ̅ς̅ και του υιου και του αγιου π̅ν̅ς̅ νυν και αει και" at that same point.  These longer examples of the doxological form are even more Trinitarian than the TR.  Yet is the longest doxology original?  No.    

Update of August 23, 2022:

Dan Chapa asked "Regarding the Didache, 1) do you have any textual variants of the Didache that exclude the doxology and 2) if you hypothesize that it's a later insertion, why doesn't it match most Greek manuscripts?"

As to (1), textual variants can only occur when you have at least two copies of something.  As the article above explains, there is only one manuscript of the Didache (in any language) that has this section.  It would be interesting to check, and perhaps I will be able to do so later, whether the same and similar doxologies found in other places in the Didache have any textual variants.  A Coptic manuscript, for example, includes at least a portion of Didache 10:3 and following, which could at least confirm whether the doxology used at 10:6 is as ancient as the Coptic version.  Evidently, the Coptic/Sahidic doxology to the Lord's Prayer likewise lacks the reference to "kingdom," though it includes an "amen."  I think (based on reading Niederwimmer's commentary on that point, see p. 161, which does not mention a textual variant) that the form "the power and the glory" is present in the Coptic ms. of 10:6.  Unfortunately for us, the Coptic does not include 8.  The Georgian version, which seems to have been lost (since the 1930s), apparently had 8 (and apparently had "sixth day" instead of the literal Greek "preparation day" both of which mean Friday).  There does seem to be a difference at 10:6 (Herr ist gekommen und sein Reich für immer zu uns - which, if I've correctly understood the collator means that the Georgian text does not mention power and glory there).  I think Shawn White mentioned that he didn't address the now-lost Georgian version or its collation by Dr. Gregor Peradse because it is unclear whether or not the Georgian version is just a modern translation. Dr. Peradse provides some consideration of the date based on the Georgian spellings used, which suggests that the manuscript he saw was not particularly ancient, but that it (or its exemplar) may have been medieval.  In any event, that's the closest we can come to finding a textual variant here.

As to (2), I assume you are talking about the speculation I made elsewhere that a Greek scribe could have harmonized the text of the prayer to align with his memory of the Lord's Prayer.  This speculative path does seem less likely, given that the doxology provided in the Greek manuscript is not the doxology used in the Greek liturgy nor that found in late Greek manuscripts.  Instead, the doxology seems at first blush to come from a tradition like the Coptic tradition, which omits "kingdom."  That could be original to the composition of this section of the Didache (whenever that was) or it could be a later insertion to this section.  The fact that the identical doxology used in 10:6 and a very similar one is used in 9 (neither of which is a quotation from Scripture) suggests that this is simply the author's liturgical addition, like the instruction that the prayer be prayed thrice daily.