Original manuscripts and added.

[Archie the Preacher]

There's an escalating scale of translator responses, depending on how strong the case for inclusion is:

1) Keep in the text with no footnote.

2) Keep in the text with a footnote.

3) Move the words to a footnote.

4) Omit from text with no footnote.

Therefore, you are claiming translators in general don't have as much 'issue' with the end of the Lord's Prayer as with the text in 1st John?

Which simply avoids the question of the rationale for the distinction.

 

[Radagast]

Therefore, you are claiming translators in general don't have as much 'issue' with the end of the Lord's Prayer as with the text in 1st John?

Not sure how you get that from what I said.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Not sure how you get that from what I said.

You listed four alternatives from which a translator might pick. But you never answered the question I asked.

One normally selects the alternative seemingly most accurate or most viable. (No one decides, "I'm going to do option C, as that seems the likeliest to fail miserably!" - unless of course, 'failure' is the goal.)

Please, if my conclusion to your statement is wrong, clarify. I asked you in the first place and am still trying to understand what you mean.

 

[Radagast]

Many versions move it to a footnote. However, that doxology may well come from the Lord's Prayer as orally handed down. I can't off the top of my head remember which other writings include it.

The doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer is in the Codex Washingtonianus and the Diatesseron, apparently, but is missing from several other early manuscripts.