| ||||
John 14:14 "Ask me anything in my name.." or "ask anything in my name.." ?
by yadda yadda 2 17 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
yadda yadda 2
-
yadda yadda 2
Couldn't figure out how to get rid of the table format, sorry.
-
Narkissos
Metzger (TCGNT, ad loc.): "Either the unusual collocation, 'ask me in my name' (yet it is not without parallel, cf. Ps 25.11; 31.3; 79.9, where the Psalmist prays to God for his name's sake), or a desire to avoid a contradiction with 16.23, seems to have prompted (a) the omission of [me] in a variety of witnesses (A D K L...) or (b) its replacement with [ton patera] (249 397). The word [me] is adequately supported (P66 [Sinaiticus] B W ...) and seems to be appropriate in view of its correlation with [egô] later in the verse."
(Ellipses and transliterations mine for the lack of Greek fonts)
-
yadda yadda 2
Thanks Narkissos.
Can I just ask what [ton patera] and [ego] mean, from that Metzger quote?
So basically it seems most of the oldest translations omit 'me' but the Sinaiticus supports inclusion of it? Interesting. Seems something that can be interpreted different ways depending on the context and views of the translator, like many bible words I guess.
-
Narkissos
ton patera: "ask the Father", in two mss.
egô: I, in the second part of the verse (which supports the inclusion of me on the grounds of inner logic: ask me, I will do it).
It's not just the Codex Sinaiticus which supports the me: it is also found in P66 (papyrus, ca. 200 AD), B = Vaticanus (4th century), W (5th century), [delta and theta, 9th century], the "f13" family of minuscules and a number of others). So the external evidence is rather strong (rated "B" by the UBS textual committee).
It must also be noted that a few witnesses omit v. 14 altogether (which can be explained in a number of ways, including formal contradiction with 16:23).
-
yadda yadda 2
Very enlightening, thank you.
On the one hand, it does seem odd that Jesus would say "..I [ego] will do it.." in the second part of the verse yet not expect his followers to personally ask him to do it. But on the other hand, to translate it as "ask me" does seem to contradict 16:23. And from what I can gather it appears more or less 50/50 on how the earliest versions/texts translated it.
A tricky one. I suppose that since praying to the Father is more often what the NT records as to how Christians should pray and there are comparably only allusions to praying directly to Jesus, and few at that (eg, 1 Cor 1:2; 1 Cor 16:22; Rev 22:20), then to exclude "..ask me.." from John 14: 14 seems more correct, imho.
2 Cor 12:7-9 is about the only passage I'm aware of that could be said to justify petitioning Jesus directly in prayer.
-
Narkissos
Well it depends on what methodology you weigh the evidence. Extra-textual considerations are not without merit but they must be used cautiously in textual criticism -- because in many cases such considerations were responsible for textual "corruption" in the first place, ancient scribes et medieval copyists thinking exactly as you do... Whence the "principle" of lectio difficilior, which has its limits of course (it can be pushed to utter nonsense).
Two additional remarks:
- this is a passage where the NWT departs from its claimed textual basis, i.e. Westcott & Hort, as the KIT clearly shows. It does indicate the variant, but as far as I remember does not point out that its choice (for the main text) runs contrary to that of W & H.
- the KJV-only sectators who are eager to find "evil" (notablyanti-trinitarian) motives behind "modern bibles" which rely on critical editions taking into account earlier witnesses than the textus receptus have an interesting counter-example here, as the majoritary conclusion of textual criticism results in a higher Christology than the KJV.
-
Leolaia
Love your comments, Narkissos. Interesting.
Leaving aside the text-critical problem, it is interesting to compare the tradition-level relationship of the saying in John 14:13 (with parallels in 14:14, 15:16, 16:23) and a similar logion in the synoptic gospels:
John 14:13-14: "Anything that (ho ti) you ever ask (an aitéséte) in my name, I will do it so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything (ean ti aitéséte me) in my name, I will do it".
Matthew 21:22: "As much as everything (panta hosa) you ever ask (an aitéséte) in prayer, you will receive if you believe".
Also not much later, Ignatius of Antioch uses the verb aitein "to ask" to refer to the act of praying (Romans 8:3, aitésasthe peri emou "pray for me") and the noun aitésin for "prayer" or "petition" (Trallians 13:3). The latter has the same sense in Philo, De Agricultura 100.1 and Testament of Abraham 9:5.
-
-
Narkissos
Thank you Leolaia, good point.
The Markan version is particularly interesting, as it may be a more direct background for GJohn.
What is striking imo in this passage (Mark 11:20ff) is the conspicuous absence of "God" (let alone Jesus) both as the addressee (destinataire) of prayer and agent of its effect; it is not primarily about asking God to do something. It is presented as a commentary on the fig tree that withered, as a result of a curse in jussive mode ("May no one ever eat fruit from you again," v. 14) -- not a prayer asking God to do anything. The Markan commentary starts with the astonishing sentence (v. 22): ekhete pistin theou, "have God's faith," or "have a god's faith" (not exactly "have faith in God" as many translations put it). So the next verse about moving mountains is not expressed as a prayer but a rather odd command (passive imperative): "if one says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and doesn't doubt in his heart, but believe that what he says will happen (hoti ho lalei ginetai), so this will be for him (estai autô). Prayer only comes in afterwards, as a kind of particular application of a general principle, i.e. the autonomous power of faith (v. 24): "So (dia touto) I tell you, whatever you pray or ask for (panta hosa proseukhesthe kai aiteisthe), believe that you have it, and it will be for you (estai humin)." (Contrast Matthew's lempsèsthe, you will receive.) In Mark God (or, more exactly, the Father) only appears in the distinct saying of the next verse, about remission of sins (// Matthew 6:14f).
If this is held to be the background for the Johannine sayings, the starting point of the dis-location, the role of Jesus appears in a somewhat different light. Jesus doesn't exactly take God's place as the recipient of prayer or the agent of the answer. It is the mysterious power of faith which GJohn "translates," globally, as "praying in his name" and "asking him so that he does"...