Major Critical Texts of the New Testament

Byz RP: 2005 Byzantine Greek New Testament, Robinson & Pierpont
TR1550: 1550 Stephanus New Testament
Maj: The Majority Text (thousands of minuscules which display a similar text)
Gries: 1774-1775 Johann Jakob Griesbach Greek New Testament
Treg: 1857-1879 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles Greek New Testament
Tisch: 1872 Tischendorf’s Greek New Testament
WH: 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament
NA28: 2012 Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament
UBS5: 2014 Greek New Testament
NU: Both Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society
SBLGNT: 2010 Greek New Testament ()
THGNT: 2017 The Greek New Testament by Tyndale House
GENTI: 2020 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear

[BRD]ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 14:14 Greek-English New Testament Interlinear (GENTI & WH NU)

“whatever you ask me in my name”
𝔓66 𝔓75 א B W Δ Θ 060 f13 33

variant/TR εαν τι αιτησητε εν τω ονοματι μου
“whatever you ask in my name”
A D L Q Ψ

John 14:14: “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”

The WH NU has ἐάν τι αἰτήσητε με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι μου “whatever you ask me in my name,” which is supported by P⁶⁶ P^75vid א B W Δ Θ 060 f¹³ 33. The variant/TR has εαν τι αιτησητε εν τω ονοματι μου “whatever you ask in my name,” which is supported by A D L Q Ψ.

The “if you ask me anything” has the support of the earliest manuscripts. Scribes likely omitted με (“me”) so as to bring 14:14 into harmony with 14:13, as well as 15:16 and 16:23. In Codex Veronensis (it^b), the entire verse of John 14:14 is omitted along with manuscripts X f¹ 565 1009 ℓ 76 ℓ 253 vg^mss syr^{s, pal} arm geo Diatessaron. Ancient versions were known to omit repetitive material. The omission could have been accidental or intentional. Below is an image of where John 14:14 would be in P⁷⁵. There is a lacuna there, which is a gap where something is missing in the manuscript. The vid in P^75vid (Latin videtur, “it seems so”) is an indication that the reading is in the witness, but there is no absolute certainty because of a lacuna. Nevertheless, there is space for the με (“me”) in the reading that would be there.

If one is wondering why ego (“I”) is missing, it may be that the scribe or some previous scribe left it out because it is redundant in the verse. Because the personal ending on the verb poieso (“I will do”), has the “I” and there is no real need for ego.

TC Principle/Rule: The reading that the other rose from is likely the original. Was it more likely that “me” was omitted or added? It is more likely that “me” was omitted, to be in agreement with 14:13, 15:16 and 16:23.

TC Principle/Rule: The more difficult or awkward reading is often preferable. Which is the harder reading? “Me” is at odds with verses 14:13; 15:16 and 16:23, and the rest of the Gospel of John.

TC Principle/Rule: The reading that is deemed immediately at odds with the context is preferred if deemed intentional because a scribe is more likely to have smoothed the reading out. The scribe likely omitted “me” to bring verse 14 in harmony with verses 14:13, 15:16 and 16:23, as well as the rest of John. In addition, “me” seems logical when we consider it with the “I” at the end of the sentence.

“If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.”

If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.”

TC Principle/Rule: Within the synoptic gospels especially, a less identical reading is preferred, as scribes had a tendency to harmonize readings. Even though John is not one of the synoptic gospels, it seems the copyists were trying to harmonize by omitting “me.”

TC Principle/Rule: The Alexandrian text-type is generally preferred (especially P⁶⁶ P⁷⁵ 01 and 03) There is no doubt that we have the best Alexandrian support.

Rule: A represented reading from more than one geographical area may be preferred to even an Alexandrian text-type reading. “Me” has Alexandrian and Western family support.

Rule: An author-doctrine reading is preferred. If a reading matches the doctrine of the author, it is preferred, and the variants that are foreign to that doctrine are questionable. This is the only principle that stands against “me.”

The με (“me”) in “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it,” must be considered almost certain because of the excellent weighty external evidence P⁶⁶ P⁷⁵ א A B D L W Θ it cop.

A Bit of Theological Bias

John 14:14 New World Translation (1984, 2013)
 14 If you ask* anything in my name, I will do it.
* “Ask,” ADIt and in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23; P⁶⁶אBWVgSy^h,p, “ask me.”

Vid is (short for Latin videtur, “it seems so”), which indicates that the reading appears to be in the witness, but a lacuna or other damage to the ms makes it somewhat uncertain.

The above is the NWT 1940 Reference edition footnote, and they fail to list P^75vid. Also, more great support that they could have listed for “ask me” is found in W Δ Θ 060 f 33. P⁷⁵ is the most important witness of all the Greek NT manuscripts. Here the translators (or textual scholars) of the NWT have ignored their own textual philosophy. First, early on they bought the rights to the 1881 Westcott and Hort Greek text (WH has αἰτήσητέ με “if you should ask me”, which they hold highly, and they are of the documentary approach as well, weighing the manuscripts, giving a little extra weight to the documents over the internal evidence, yet still looking at the internal evidence. Well, this textual issue has a mountain of weighty manuscripts for “ask me” that they ignore and instead lean entirely on internal evidence. This is known as theological bias. As is true of Christians, the Witnesses are not familiar with NT textual studies; although they are given many articles on the subject in their literature. The thing is, it is spread out over time, so they do not get a feel for what manuscripts are the best, so when reading the footnote, they would not fully appreciate the fact that the textual scholars of the NWT are ignoring such weighty evidence. The same holds true for Christians and their Bible translations as well. When we look at the footnotes below from some leading literal and semi-literal translations, we find a couple things. First, their footnotes are not as informative as the ones in the NWT. The NASB does not even have a footnote. The footnotes below add no real insights into the choices being made and why. Second, even if the churchgoers had a more informative footnote like the NWT, they would not have the basic knowledge to understand it either.

John 14:14 American Standard Version (ASV) 14 If ye shall ask[a] anything in my name, that will I do. [a] John 14:14 Many ancient authorities add me.

John 14:14 English Standard Version (ESV) 14 If you ask me[a] anything in my name, I will do it.  [a]John 14:14 Some manuscripts omit me

John 14:14  Christian Standard Bible (CSB) 14 If you ask me[a] anything in my name, I will do it.[b] [a]14:14 Other mss omit me [b]14:14 Other mss omit all of v. 14

John 14:14  New American Standard Bible (NASB) 14 If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

Philip Comfort writes,

The WH NU reading has the support of the earliest manuscripts. The word με (“me”) was probably omitted to bring 14:14 in conformity with 14:13. Some witnesses (X f 565 itb syrs, arm geo) omit this verse entirely. The cause of the omission could have been accidental—the eye of the scribe may have passed over the word εαν in 14:14 to εαν in 14:15. Or the omission could have been intentional inasmuch as 14:14 repeats 14:13. It would have been especially tempting in ancient versions to omit a repetitive statement. The verse must be considered part of the original work because of its excellent testimony (𝔓66 𝔓75 א A B D L W Θ it cop).

Metzger writes,

με {B} –

The letter {B} indicates that the text is almost certain.

Either the unusual collocation, “ask me in my name,” or a desire to avoid contradiction with 16:23 seems to have prompted (a) the omission of με in a variety of witnesses (A D K L Π Ψ Byz al) or (b) its replacement with τὸν πατέρα (249 397). The word με is adequately supported (𝔓66 א B W Δ Θ f 28 33 700 al) and seems to be appropriate in view of its correlation with ἐγώ later in the verse.

Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger,

με (me) {B}

Either the unusual combination of words, “ask me in my name,” or a desire to avoid contradiction with 16:23 seems to have led to (a) the omission of με in a variety of witnesses or (b) its replacement with τόν πατέρα (the Father). The word με has adequate manuscript support and seems to be appropriate in view of its correlation with ἐγώ (I) later in the verse. Even if the shorter reading is accepted as original (so REB and Seg), in some languages the pronoun “me” may be included for reasons of translation. Since it is Jesus who will answer the prayer, it is better to understand the prayer as directed to Jesus rather than to the Father.

Andreas J. Köstenberger writes,

14:12–14 The chapter started with Jesus’ reference to his imminent departure in order to “prepare a place” for his followers. Queries by Thomas and Philip indicated that the disciples did not understand the way in which the Father was present in Jesus’ works and words. In 14:12–14 the discussion moves beyond the question of Jesus’ departure and destination and his unity with the Father to the disciples’ future mission subsequent to Jesus’ exaltation.

Jesus’ claim is nothing less than startling: “Whoever believes in me … will perform even greater works than these” (cf. 5:20; see Köstenberger 1995a: 36–45). Many early interpreters took the “greater things” to refer to the missionary successes of the early church. In relation to the Book of Acts, this certainly is true. Jesus’ followers were in a position to influence a greater number of people and to spread out over a much larger geographical area. In the context of John’s Gospel, however, “greater things” has primarily a qualitative dimension, marking Jesus’ “signs” as preliminary and his disciples’ ministry as “greater” in the sense that their ministry is based on Jesus’ completed cross-work (12:24; 15:13; 19:30) and that it belongs to a more advanced stage in God’s economy of salvation (cf. Matt. 11:11). Jesus’ followers are benefiting from others’ labors, reaping what they have not sown, and will bear fruit that remains (John 4:31–38; 15:8, 16).

Thus, in keeping with motifs current in both Jewish life in general and farewell discourses in particular, the disciples are designated as Jesus’ successors, taking their place in a long string of predecessors that ranges from the OT prophets to John the Baptist and climaxes in Jesus.55 In this sense, Jesus’ followers—not just his original disciples, but “whoever believes in me”—will do greater things than even Jesus did, aided by answered prayer in Jesus’ name (14:13) and in close spiritual union with their exalted Lord (ch. 15). In a real sense, these “greater works” will be performed by the exalted Jesus in and through his followers,57 whereby “because I am going to the Father” is a somewhat oblique way of referring to Jesus’ cross and resurrection (cf. 13:1; 16:28). Jesus pledges that his leaving does not constitute a permanent withdrawal; rather, subsequent to his exaltation, he will be able to help his followers on earth (Ridderbos 1997: 498).

The reference to believers’ future “greater works” in 14:12 marks a transition from the necessity of faith in Jesus (14:10–11) to the promise of God’s help (14:13–14). In answer to the disciples’ prayer, he will do “whatever you ask in my name.” Praying in Jesus’ name does not involve magical incantations but rather expresses alignment of one’s desires and purposes with God (1 John 5:14–15). – John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 432–434.

Kenneth O. Gangel writes,

14:14. Obviously, just saying “in Jesus’ name” creates no magic potion for prayer. The culture in which these words were spoken took names very seriously, so much so that they equated one’s name with the character, spirit, and power of that person. That is why the Jews never spoke the name of Yahweh.

Imagine a child playing in the middle of the street when her father arrives home from work. When he scolds her and calls her back to the yard immediately, she says, “Mommy told me I could play in the street; I’m out here in mommy’s name.” A ridiculous illustration, but it points out how often Christians do strange things and then claim they are behaving “in Jesus’ name.” Since Jesus’ name is always connected in some way with our prayers even if we do not speak those words, if we cannot ask in his name we should not ask at all.

Tasker reminds us that Jesus, “departure to the Father, so far from ending his influence on earth, will mean its continuance under wider conditions and with the results rendered possible by the power of effective prayer” (Tasker, p. 166). – John, vol. 4, Holman New Testament Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000), 267–268.

Final Thoughts

Some manuscripts omit me (A D K L Π Ψ Byz al). However, “me” has sufficient quality manuscript support with (P⁶⁶ א B W Δ Θ f ¹³ 28 33 700 al). Really, the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society with their New World Translation do know and are well aware of textual criticism. In fact, their textual choices are very good because they follow the same documentary approach as Comfort and me. In this scenario, if there was no theological baggage, they would have gone with the far superior (P⁶⁶ א B). It isn’t like Jesus doesn’t make the point that they would be trying to make, as he does so in John 15:16, which reads “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.” And John 16:23, which reads, “In that day you will ask me no question at all. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask of the Father for anything in my name, he will give it to you.” But the Witnesses could not leave John 14:14 go, and so they ignored their own textual criticism method, the documentary approach. Now, before the conservative evangelicals do any high-fiving, know that all Bible translations have some theological bias when it comes to textual and translation decisions.

Variant Reading(s): differing versions of a word or phrase found in two or more manuscripts within a variation unit (see below). Variant readings are also called alternate readings.

Variation Unit: any portion of text that exhibits variations in its reading between two or more different manuscripts. It is important to distinguish variation units from variant readings. Variation units are the places in the text where manuscripts disagree, and each variation unit has at least two variant readings. Setting the limits and range of a variation unit is sometimes difficult or even controversial because some variant readings affect others nearby. Such variations may be considered individually, or as elements of a single reading. One should also note that the terms “manuscript” and “witness” may appear to be used interchangeably in this context. Strictly speaking, “witness” (see below) will only refer to the content of a given manuscript or fragment, which it predates to a greater or lesser extent. However, the only way to reference the “witness” is by referring to the manuscript or fragment that contains it. In this book, we have sometimes used the terminology “witness of x or y manuscript” to distinguish the content in this way.

TERMS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD OBJECTIVELY VIEW THE DEGREE OF CERTAINTY FOR THE READING ACCEPTED AS THE ORIGINAL

The modal verbs are might have been (30%), may have been (40%), could have been (55%), would have been (80%), must have been (95%), which are used to show that we believe the originality of a reading is certain, probable or possible.

The letter [WP] stands for Weak Possibility (30%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading might have been original in that it is enough evidence to accept that the variant might have been possible, but it is improbable. We can say the reading might have been original, as there is some evidence that is derived from manuscripts that carry very little weight, early versions, or patristic quotations.

The letter [P] stands for Plausible (40%), which indicates that this is a low-level proof that the reading may have been original in that it is enough to accept a variant to be original, and we have enough evidence for our belief. The reading may have been original, but it is not probably so.

The letter [PE] stands for Preponderance of Evidence (55%), which indicates that this is a higher-level proof that the reading could have been original in that it is enough to accept as such unless another reading emerges as more probable.

The letter [CE] stands for Convincing Evidence (80%), which indicates that the evidence is an even higher-level proof that the reading surely was the original in that the evidence is enough to accept it as substantially certain unless proven otherwise.

The letter [BRD] stands for Beyond Reasonable Doubt (95%), which indicates that this is the highest level of proof: the reading must have been original in that there is no reason to doubt it. It must be understood that feeling as though we have no reason to doubt is not the same as one hundred percent absolute certainty.

NOTE: This system is borrowed from the criminal just legal terms of the United States of America, the level of certainty involved in the use of modal verbs, and Bruce Metzger in his A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), who borrowed his system from Johann Albrecht Bengel in his edition of the Greek New Testament (Tübingen, 1734). In addition, the percentages are in no way attempting to be explicit but rather they are nothing more than a tool to give the non-textual scholar a sense of the degree of certainty. However, this does not mean the percentages are not reflective of certainty.

SOURCES

• B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1882)
• Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Biblical Studies Press, 2006)
• Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994),
• Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: NTG Apparatus Criticus, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
• Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament: Apparatus (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017).
• Dirk Jongkind, ed., The Greek New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), Matt. 6:8.
• Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28. revidierte Auflage. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012)
• Philip Wesley Comfort, A COMMENTARY ON THE MANUSCRIPTS AND TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2015).
• Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the Variant Readings of the Ancient New Testament Manuscripts and How They Relate to the Major English Translations (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008).
• Philip Wesley Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts: Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, 2 Volume Set The (English and Greek Edition) (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2019)
• Roger L. Omanson and Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006).
• Wallace B., Daniel (n.d.). Retrieved from The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts: http://csntm.org/
• Wilker, Wieland (n.d.). Retrieved from An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels: http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/index.html

SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN FICTION