It dates from 1514, when the Complutensian editors, whilst admitting that the words were found in their Greek copies, banished them from the text solely in deference to the Latin version.

In a marginal annotation they started the hypothesis that the doxology is a liturgical interpolation.

But how is that possible, seeing that the doxology is commented on by Chrysostom?
'We presume,' they say, 'that this corruption of the original text must date from an antecedent period.' The same adverse sentence, supported by the same hypothesis, was reaffirmed by Erasmus, and on the same grounds; but in his edition of the N.T.he suffered the doxology to stand.

As the years have rolled out, and Codexes DBZ[Symbol: Aleph] have successively come to light, critics have waxed bolder and bolder in giving their verdict.

First, Grotius, Hammond, Walton; then Mill and Grabe; next Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach; lastly Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers have denounced the precious words as spurious.
But how does it appear that tract of time has strengthened the case against the doxology?
Since 1514, scholars have become acquainted with the Peshitto version; which by its emphatic verdict, effectually disposes of the evidence borne by all but three of the Old Latin copies.
The [Greek: Didache] of the first or second century, the Sahidic version of the third century, the Apostolic Constitutions (2), follow on the same side.