John 14:14 ask ME anything in my name?
One of the lesser known textual variants occurs in John 14:14. It is a small but significant variant that revolves around the inclusion or non-inclusion of the word “me”. The Greek word in reference is με from ἐγώ ego (first person pronoun).
The KJV reads without the word “me”.
John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. KJV
However, many modern versions of the Bible include με in the text and so they read differently.
John 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. ESV
Also including the word “me” in this verse are many modern versions such as the NIV, NLT, BSB, NASB, NET Bible, ISV and ERV.
It must be noted that the KJV is not the only version that excludes “me” in this verse.
These include but are certainly not limited to
Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew’s Bible, Bishops’ Bible and Geneva Bible.
All these versions that preceded the KJV agree with the reading found in the KJV. This most certainly is not a KJV only issue.
So what is the correct reading here?
In his book “The King James Only controversy”, James White states:
“The inclusion of the term “me” in John 14:14 is based upon its being present in a large portion of the manuscripts, including the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of John. Yet the KJV lacks the term, following only one portion of the majority text.”
James White – The King James only controversy Pages 202-203
The majority text does NOT include “με”.
John 14:14 εαν τι αιτησητε εν τω ονοματι μου εγω ποιησω
The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Edited by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad.
It must also be noted that The Westcott and Hort text originally had “με” in brackets and thus it is clear that they had doubt over its authenticity.
“εαν τι αιτησητε [με] εν τω ονοματι μου τουτο ποιησω”
The reading “με”, though, is found in Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and P66. It is primarily on this basis that it is deemed authentic by those that deem it to be, as Mr White alluded to.
I have written intensively against the authority and reliability of the 2 “flagship” manuscripts of the Critical text, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
These 2 “flagship” manuscripts, along with P66 and P75 do not agree with each other when it comes to this verse.
Vaticanus has the word Touto (this) after “με” and so reads “If you ask me this”. Touto is also supported by P75
Sinaiticus has the word Ti (anything) that follows “με” and so reads “if you ask me anything”.
Let’s look at another example of the non agreement of these manuscripts.
In John 14:11 Jesus states to “believe ME for the very works’ sake.”
John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake. KJV
This “me” is not included in most modern versions of the Bible, Including the NIV and ESV
John 14:11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. NIV
John 14:11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. ESV
It is not found in the NA27/USB4 text:
πιστεύετέ μοι ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· εἰ δὲ μή, διὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτὰ πιστεύετε.
This “me” is not present in Sinaiticus, but it is, however, found in Vaticanus. It is also present in Alexandrinus. Yet again these manuscripts are at odds with one another.
So we see here that the reading in Vaticanus which is supported by Alexandrinus is rejected over the reading found in Sinaiticus.
It is worthy of note that it is also included in the Greek orthodox text:
John 14:11 πιστεύετέ μοι ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· εἰ δὲ μή, διὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτὰ πιστεύετέ μοι.
“με” in John 14:14 as the reading of the KJV, is not present in manuscripts A, D, K, L, Pi, Psi, the Old Latin a, air, d, e, q, r1. Neither is it found in the Ethiopian, Coptic Boharic, Sahidic, and Slavonic versions
So the non inclusion of “με” is supported by a wide range of lines of transmission, including an early Alexandrian manuscript.
When it comes to evidence in support of the correct reading it cannot be ignored that “με” is not present in the Diatessaron 160-175 A.D.
The evidence found in the Diatessaron for the non-inclusion of “με” therefore precedes P66, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and gives us an insight into what the correct reading was before we have manuscript evidence.
Although P75 is often cited as a witness for the inclusion of “με” it is in fact neither a witness for or against, as there is actually a lacuna at this point of the text. There is, however, space for its inclusion but there is no way we can be certain. P75 is referenced as P75vid Which means – videtur, “it seems so”)
Another point of importance to note is that the inclusion of the word “me” in John 14:14 almost certainly creates a contradiction with John 16:23
John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. KJV
Here Jesus states that they will ask him for nothing but rather it is the father who Jesus says they will ask in the name of Jesus.
John 14:14 also reads better and is more inline with verse 13 when “με” is not present.
John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
It also aligns with Jesus being the mediator BETWEEN God and Man.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Modern textual criticism usually prefers the “harder” or more difficult reading and so as adding “με” would make the reading at odds with John 16:23 (and other verses) it is asserted that it is more likely that a scribe removed it in order to harmonise the verses.
However, it could also be argued that “με” was in fact added by a scribe in order to make the verse better harmonise with the ending statement of John 14:14 where we find “ἐγώ” where Jesus states “I will do it”.
While “με” is found in the oldest available manuscripts of this verse, The evidence for “με” is predominantly supported by the Alexandrian transmission line.
As we have seen the evidence against the non inclusion includes, the majority text, a wider transmission line, the Diatessaron that precedes the available manuscripts, Alexandrinus and the fact that it reads better and is more consistent with other biblical verses.
If you liked this study please subscribe here
You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here
Join our Patreon membership here or you can buy me a coffee through paypal
0 Comments